My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9676
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9676
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:37 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 2:54:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9676
Author
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Title
Preliminary Analysis
USFW Year
2001.
USFW - Doc Type
Wayne N. Aspinall Unit Operations and the Draft Endangered Fish Flow Recommendations for the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />On the other hand, large releases modeled to meet the NPS desired peak flows would result in <br />recommended fish peak flows being met more frequently at the Whitewater gage because of the large <br />volume of water needed for the NPS peaks. Operating to meet NPS desired peaks met at least 90 percent <br />of the endangered fish peaks about 60 percent of the time. <br /> <br />The following table compares model runs to meet both the NPS desired flows and the endangered fish <br />flow recommendations. <br /> <br />Endangered Fish Flow Recommendations and NPS Desired Flow Comparison <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />90% of the NPS Peak 4% 19% 50% <br />Met <br />90% of Endangered Fish 19% 58% 62% <br />Peaks Met <br />100% of Required Flow 81% 38% 100% <br />90% of Required Flow 89% 65% 100% <br />80% of Required Flow 96% 77% 100% <br />>95% of Desired Base 90% 97% 89% <br />Flow <br />>80% of Desired Base 96% 99% 94% <br />Flow <br />Occurrences when Base 87% 93% 84% <br />Flow Demand> 1000 cfs <br /> <br />*Provides a May peak with the same limitations as FWS Run C. <br /> <br />It should be noted that operating to meet the desired tlows for both the NPS and the endangered fish will <br />have significant negative effects on other resources. For example, operating to meet the NPS desired <br />hydro graph will impact hydrpower, downstream fisheries and flooding at Delta, while operating to meet <br />endangered fish flow recommendations will have greater impacts on resources dependent on reservoir <br />levels such as the State of Colorado Compact entitlement, reservoir fisheries, and recreation. <br /> <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.