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
• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />9 <br />shown in Figure 6. These reservoir elevations are those that were exceeded by 50% of the 6S <br />potential reservoir elevations that occurred for each month. In the dryer scenarios, reservoir <br />elevations are typically much lower than in the average or wet scenarios. Figure 7 shows reservoir <br />elevations that were exceeded by 90% of the potential reservoir elevations that occurred for each <br />month. Figure 7 is significant because it shows a tremendous improvement for Action alternative <br />in comparison to what was reported in the October report. Now, the Action alternative yields <br />reservoir elevations that are even higher than those yielded by the No Action alternative. The <br />October report showed a large disparity between the Action and No Action alternatives with the <br />Action alternative much lower than the No Action alternative. <br />The model results indicate that reservoir elevations are basically stable throughout the <br />model run under both alternatives. That is to say the reservoir elevation did not gradually increase <br />or decrease under the Action and No Action alternatives in the later years of the run. For this <br />reason, it was valid to combine all of the reservoir elevations into a single dataset, grouped by <br />month and then ranked from lowest to highest into monthly distributions. Figures 8 and 9 show <br />these distributions for the months of February and June. These months are shown because <br />reservoir elevations are typically near their lowest level of the year by the end of February and near <br />their highest level by the end of June. Both figures show that the distributions <br />Fi ore 8 Februar Reservoir IEaevation llistribution Ylot <br />Flaming Gorge End of February Elevations <br />Modelled vs. Historic <br />605 - - - 60~ <br />604Cr <br />F3040 <br /> 6035 <br />6035 <br /> 60'0 <br />6030 <br />6025 6025 <br /> <br />° c <br />6020 0 <br />.~ <br />- 6020 •~ <br /> 6015 d <br />°' 6015 <br />w w <br />a> <br />-- 6010 c°'i <br />~ 6010 -- - <br /> ~ <br /> ' 6005 <br />3 6005 I-1991) <br />-Historic Elevations (19? ~ <br />N <br />°' -N"~°"=tion -- 6000 <br />6000 <br />is <br /> -f%ctinn ?r <br /> 5995 <br />5995 <br /> 5990 <br />5990 <br /> 5985 <br />5985 <br /> 5980 <br />5980 <br />~ 00 jai ~ 8r~ 7n E~0 5i) 40 30 20 10 0 <br />Percentage Exceedance <br />of reservoir elevations for the Action alternative are now actually higher than the distributions for <br />the No Action alternative. These results are substantially different from those presented in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.