My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05167
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05167
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:15 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:53:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.104.I
Description
Flaming Gorge
State
UT
Basin
Yampa/White/Green
Date
10/1/2001
Author
Clayton-Gilmore
Title
Flaming Gorge Environmental Impact Statement Hydrologic Modeling Study Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 />6 <br />6, River flows in Reach One and Reach Two are assumed to have the same magnitude at all <br />points along the reach, Gains and losses as a result of infiltration, precipitation or <br />evaporation along the reach are not accounted for in the model. <br /> <br />7. All hourly flow objectives for each of the proposed alternatives are assumed to be <br />achieved and are not directly considered within the Green River model. <br /> <br />8, Flaming Gorge Power Plant is assumed to have a capacity of 4600 cfs. The bypass tubes <br />are assumed to have a total capacity of 4000 cfs, The spillway is assumed to have a <br />capacity of approximately 28,000 cfs. <br /> <br />Model Results <br /> <br />,~ <br /> <br />Analysis of the output for the Action Alternative model run indicated that the magnitude <br />and duration of the peak releases increased significantly as a result of achieving all of the flow <br />objectives of the Action Alternative. Magnitudes and durations of the peak releases in the No <br />Action results were noticeably smaller and shorter. An investigation of the individual flow <br />objectives for the Action Alternative discovered that one flow objective was responsible for most <br />of these increases. The Reach Two objective requiring a sustained flow on the Green River of <br />18,600 cfs for at least 2 weeks in 40% of all years required peak releases of at least 8600 cfs in <br />40% of all years and at least 10,600 cfs in 20% of all years, to achieve this objective. <br /> <br />To help understand the impacts associated with achieving this one objective, two versions <br />of the Action ruleset were constructed. The first version, which is described as the Action (ALL) <br />model run, achieved all flow objectives for the Action Alternative including the 18,600 cfs <br />objective. The second version of the Action ruleset, described as the Action (ALL-I) model run, <br />did not focus on achieving the 18,600 cfs objective. Instead this ruleset focused on achieving all <br />other flow objectives of the Action Alternative and ignored the 18,600 efs objective. Table I <br />summarizes the Action (ALL), Action (ALL-I) and No Action model results in terms of how <br />well the spring flow objectives of the Action Alternative were achieved under each ruleset. It is <br />important to note that even when this objective was ignored by the Action(ALL-I) ruleset, it was <br />still achieved 18.2% of the time as a result of achieving the other flow objectives. Analysis of <br />the Action (ALL-I) results show that 18,600 cfs was achieved 40% of the time in Reach Two for <br />a duration of 6 days. <br /> <br />,- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.