Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Concerning the frequency of the flushing flow, the peak mean daily <br />flows have been evaluated for the 31 years that are modelled under <br />this study. The minimum flushing flow of 10,000 cfs was not met in <br />10 years, and was decreased by the Two Forks project in 3 years. <br />The Williams Fork project further reduced the peak flow in the same <br />3 years. The peak flows affected by the projects that were below <br />10,000 cfs are listed below. <br /> <br />Year <br />1961 <br />1976 <br />1981 <br /> <br />Baseline <br />8,177 <br />8,310 <br />4,522 <br /> <br />~o <br />Forks <br />8,145 <br />8,278 <br />4,490 <br /> <br />Williams <br />Fork <br />7,988 <br />8,124 <br />4,473 <br /> <br />The above peak flows are mean daily flows and the corresponding <br />instantaneous peak flow is typically 200 to 2,000 cfs higher. Thus <br />the use of mean daily values to analyze the impact on the flushing <br />flows of 10,000 cfs is conservative. Diversions from the projects <br />will alter the flooq frequency curve at palisades by increasing the <br />. ~A <br /> <br />recurrence interval for a given flow. Using the peak mean daily <br />flows for the 1952 to 1982 period of record and a log-Pearson type <br />III distribution, a 10,000 cfs flow has a recurrence interval of <br />1.65 years. The Two Forks project increases the recurrence <br />interval to 1.66 years and the Williams Fork project increases the <br />interval to 1.67 years. The increase in recurrence intervals <br />(longer average time petween flows of same magnitude) at Palisades <br />from the Two Forks and Williams Forks projects is not appreciable. <br /> <br />9 <br />