My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9602 (2)
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9602 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:36 PM
Creation date
5/24/2009 7:24:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9602
Author
Clayton, R. and A. Gilmore.
Title
Flaming Gorge Draft Environmental Impact Statement Hydrologic Modeling Report.
USFW Year
2002.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
i <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />i <br />~s <br />Base Flows -Reach Two <br />August throu,h F~ebuaiy <br />I (10101) -T- ~ --r -- <br />- Nu Action <br />- Action <br />8000 Historical (71-91 ) <br />-_ F're Dam (d(~_61 ) <br />Ci000 --------- -- ---_------ -------- <br />_. X000 -- <br />~~ <br />?000 <br />- -1---- ---_i-- ---t __- - - - _ - i _ _ - --t ----- <br />tOri ?0'7~• 409c 6051 h0'h 10051 <br />Percentage Exceedance <br />Summary <br />This report details the refinements and modifications that have been made over the past <br />three months to the Flaming Gorge model. These refinements were made in response to comments <br />received on the modeling report issued in October, 2001. The way the model was originally <br />developed, Flaming Gorge Dam was operated such that it was inconsistent with how the 2000 <br />Flow Recommendations and 1992 Biological Opinion were intended to be implemented. The <br />modifications made over the past three months attempt to solve this problem. <br />The results described in this report show significantly reduced impacts to reservoir related <br />resources. Of all of the modifications made since October, the most significant was the <br />implementation of the daily model to react to estimated Yampa River flows. This modification <br />substantially reduced the volume of the spring releases made by the Action alternative, which in <br />turn, decreased the drawdown effects associated with the spring release. The Action alternative <br />now yields reservoir elevations that are significantly higher than those presented in the October <br />report. While the frequency of bypasses in the Action alternative has not changed very much from <br />those reported in October, the bypass volumes have been significantly reduced. In October, there <br />was about a 20% chance that any given year would have a bypass in excess of 300,000 acre-feet. <br />With the modifications made since October, there is now a 20% chance in any given year of a <br />bypass in excess 150,000 acre-feet. <br />This report is not comprehensive in terms of the model results analysis presented. It is an attempt <br />to provide some useful analysis for the purposes of determining other resource impacts. Statistical <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.