Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />,~ <br />Flow Durations (May - Julyj <br />~ze~~e~~ <br />- -- <br />~oooo - ---- - - --- <br />- Nu Action 4 Week Flow <br />- Historic d Week Flow (71 -91 ) <br />-10000 Action 4 Week Flow <br />_ 10000 ---- <br />'l. <br />~J <br />I O~)U~) <br />____ _ -._ <br />((~c7c ~-- -----'0c ` - 40c7c -- --- 60`o ----- ._ _._ $O~ii 1 0O`/r <br />Percent Exceeded <br />Reach Two Base Flow Release Results <br />Figure 19 shows the distribution of baseflows that occurred in reach Two under the Action <br />and I~io Action alternatives. Baseflows are noticeably decreased under the Action alternative <br />especially in wetter years. For reference, the distribution of pre-dam (1946 to 1961 j baseflows <br />and the distribution of baseflows during the period from 1971 through 1991 are included in the <br />figure. The period from 1946 through 1961 does include a significant dry cycle for the Upper <br />Green River Basin but these two distributions of historic Reach Two flows give some perspective <br />to the difference between the Action and No Action alternative baseflows. <br />Figure 19 Exceedance Percentage Flows for Reach Two Flows During Base Flow Period <br />