Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />condition was modeled. resuhing in the now Slalistics shown in Table 3.7. Aow <br />recommendations are met under (his condition (See Table 3.1 for comparison). The details of <br />reservoir cament and slream flow are presented in Appendix A. While both diversions and <br />return flows arc quile different, the net effect allows the flow recommendations to be met. <br /> <br />lable 3.7 Summary Flow Statistics for the NGWSP plus Baseline less ALP Depletion <br /> <br /> Discharge (ds) <br />Duration >10,000 >8,000 >5,000 >2,500 <br /> A verage Frequency <br />1 days 38.5% 55.4% 70.8% 96.9% <br />5 days 27.7% 47.7% 67.7% 89.2% <br />10 days 16.9% 40.0% 64.6% 83.1% <br />15 days 10.6% 32.3% 58.5% 75.4% <br />20 days 27.7% 70.8% <br />21 days 53.8% <br />30 days 15.4% 43.1% 66.2% <br />40 days 33.8% 55.4% <br />50 days 26.2% 50.8% <br />60 days 21.5% 43.1% <br />80 days 12.3% 32.3% <br /> Maximum Years Without Meeting Criteria <br />Flow Criteria - Min Duration Allowed Modeled <br />9700 cfs for 5-days . 1 a-years 10 10 <br />7760 cfs for 10-days .6-years 6 6 <br />4850 cfs for 2l-days - 4-years 4 4 <br />2450 cfs for 10-days - 2 years 2 2 <br /> <br />BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT <br />NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT <br />September 3. 2004 <br /> <br />Page 21 <br />