1 / 29

Martin Rule Curve Study

Martin Rule Curve Study. Ashley McVicar, APC Maurice James, Water Resources Consulting LLC. Martin Rule Curve Study. Purpose Preliminary modeling study to determine the feasibility of a higher winter pool at Martin in accordance with MIG 3 Project Operations Study Plan.

colby-parsons
Download Presentation

Martin Rule Curve Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Martin Rule Curve Study Ashley McVicar, APC Maurice James, Water Resources Consulting LLC

  2. Martin Rule Curve Study • Purpose • Preliminary modeling study to determine the feasibility of a higher winter pool at Martin in accordance with MIG 3 Project Operations Study Plan.

  3. Martin Rule Curve Study • Design Flood Study Approach • Determine historical flood event to model for the 100 year design flood • Replicate operations for the actual flood event in an operation spreadsheet • Evaluate a higher winter pool vs. baseline of elevation 480’ • Compare Results

  4. “100 Year Flood” Has a specific definition US Dept of Interior Bulletin 17B Applied by Regulating Agencies (FEMA, COE, FERC, the States, etc.) Frequency Analysis of Maximum Annual Flood Events. 1% chance of occurrence in each year. Generally concerned with peak flow For Reservoirs – volume also critical

  5. How is this Analysis Done? • Select Maximum Flood Event for each year. • Prefer 30+ year record. • Apply a specific frequency analysis to data. • COE Frequency Analysis program • Project to 1% probability of exceedence.

  6. Monthly Analysis • Not an established procedure. • Referred to as a “Partial Duration” • Only considering part of the record. • Maximum event in month for the period of record. • Annual peak procedures may not apply. • Will still have a probability of exceedence but not necessarily 1%.

  7. What does all this say? • There is a chance that the 100 year flood could occur in any month of the year. • The greatest chance would be during the months of Dec. through April. • Not necessary for the record to have an event near or greater than the 1% event.

  8. Martin Rule Curve Study • APC Flood Frequency Analysis • Model developed by COE – Hydrologic Engineering Center in Davis, CA • Utilizes the COE 1939-2001 unimpaired flow database created as part of the ACT Comprehensive Study • Submitted to the COE by APC in November 2005

  9. Martin Rule Curve Study • Martin flow • 100 yr flow unregulated = 130,000 cfs-days • March 1990 flow unregulated = 125,019 cfs-days (96% of 100 year flood) • March 1990 inflow regulated used in Martin Rule Curve evaluation (with Harris and Martin in place) = 92,307 cfs-days (71% of 100 year unregulated flood)

  10. Basin Wide Rainfall

  11. Current Martin Flood Control Guidelines Pre-Turbine Upgrades

  12. Martin Rule Curve Study Post Turbine Upgrades • General Assumptions • Martin Turbine Capacity = 16500 (based on upgrades completed in 2004) • Yates Turbine Capacity = 12400 • Thurlow Turbine Capacity = 13200 • 20 spillway gates • Ability to open 2 spillway gates an hour

  13. Martin Rule Curve Study • Design Flood Evaluation • Operational criteria set forth in model accurately replicated historical conditions

  14. Martin Rule Curve Study • Evaluation of Winter Pool of 480’ vs. 483’ • Used current operational criteria set forth by March 1990 flood historical operations and began pool at both 480’ and 483’

  15. JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

  16. Martin Rule Curve Study • Elevation 480’ vs 483’ Results • Martin pool kept below top of easement elevation 490 for both • Beginning winter pool elevation of 483’ results in earlier releases as well as approximately 25-30k higher discharge during the peak • Resulting outflows passed downstream with HEC-RAS model

  17. Martin Rule Curve Study • Results • Elevations downstream result in a 1’ – 3’ higher elevation downstream to Alabama River. • COE uses FEMA’s requirement of “no increase of peak elevation downstream” • FERC defers to the COE for flood analysis • FERC would require a full analysis of flood, environmental and recreational impacts of proposed vs. current operation

  18. Martin Rule Curve Study • Further Study during Relicensing Required • MIG 3 proposals evaluated • Look at different winter pool elevation and/or shape of Rule Curve • Look at different operational plans • Further evaluate downstream flood & environmental impacts and present these effects and associated mitigation measures to FERC • FERC will then evaluate and balance all interests

More Related