Water managers have added new features to the Savannah District’s Water Management page.
In addition to accessing current information on lake levels, precipitation and individual USGS gauge data, users can now add features like a storm radar and cloud cover using yellow toggle buttons at the top of the page.
The radar and cloud cover features are updated each time you refresh your browser.
While these new features might not make you visit the page more, we hope they’ll be useful – like determining how soaked you’ll get on the way home the one day you decided to ride your bike to work.
~ Jeremy S. Buddemeier, Corporate Communications Office
Forecast rainfall for the next 3 days increased today to a solid 3″+ for Hartwell and 2.5″+ for Thurmond and Stevens Creek. If the forecast holds, lake levels could increase 2.5′ to 3′ or more, likely resulting in higher Thurmond release rates.
My calculations for the Dec rainfall event indicated little difference in downstream outcomes for the impossible perfect forecast and response, with an estimated difference of 0.6′ or 11,000 cfs at Butler Creek for the observed crest of 118.37′ versus my estimated 117.77′.
However, 11,000 cfs would represent a huge difference for more frequent smaller events. For example, 11,000 cfs would increase the Butler Creek level from 105′ to 111.6′ or from 110′ to 115.3′, preventing property access for groups of downstream stakeholders and increasing levels to channel capacity in the latter scenario.
Lake levels are close to target at a few inches above Full Pool, currently 328′ / 658′. However, Thurmond releases have been normal for only a week because high inflows this winter have inhibited the ability to reach or remain below Full Pool. At this point, forecasts call for another rainfall event early next week and long range outlooks continue anticipating above normal rainfall into spring. I expect downstream flooding again this year, and encourage lower lake levels that contribute to a lower crest.
I am glad David asked the question, because I would also like to know. The Thurmond elevation displayed on the Home page is different from the one displayed on the graph obtained by clicking on the current elevation. The graph shows ~327′ or the average for the life of the project. The 326.36′ for today is closer to the average since Russell.
I really like the additional useful information on the graph, including darker lines for the state boundaries. Great freshening job!
How is the average elevation calculated? In years past it seemed to be averaged over the life of the lake and a couple years ago I noticed it changed to what looks like a rolling average over a certain time period or an average by month.
Good question David. Averages are calculated with all the data from the beginning of each project. Based on your question and Ferris’s follow-on above, we did notice a discrepancy that was causing the plot’s average elevation to differ from the home page’s average. The data being used to populate one of the averages only looked back to 1962, which cut off 10 years of data at Thurmond. It is corrected now but may take a few minutes to populate. Hope this helps. Thanks for commenting ~Russell