Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9 <br /> <br />FIGURE 2 Trace 54 Elevation Com arison <br /> <br />6050 <br /> <br />Trace Comparison <br />Action(ALL)/Action(ALL-1)INoAction Trace 54 <br /> <br />6040 <br /> <br /> <br />- Action(ALL) <br />+Action(ALL-1) <br />-B- NoAction <br /> <br />c <br />o <br />'Ii 6030 <br />> <br />.. <br />iii <br />.. <br />~ 6020 <br /> <br />:l <br />II) <br />... <br />~ 6010 <br />~ <br /> <br />6000 <br /> <br />5990 <br />Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 <br /> <br />Date <br /> <br />The 50th percentile ("most probable") elevations over the fIrst 10 years of the model runs <br />are shown in Figure 3, As compared to the two Action Alternatives, the No Action Alternative <br />provided signifIcantly higher reservoir elevations in the summer months. The Action (ALL) <br />results indicated lower elevations than the Action (ALL-l) results, During the winter, elevations <br />were very similar for all three model runs since the draw down target is the same in all three <br />rulesets, As in Figure 1, a single trace has been included in Figure 3, This trace (trace 16) <br />achieved the 50% exceedance level for the Action(ALL) results in July, 10 years into the trace, <br />