394
17 Environmental Flow Definition and Management: A Case Study …
Table 17.14
Mean annual flows at reporting nodes
Reach
Item Scenario
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
Flow
reporting
location
L1 Volume
(1,000 m 3
)
176,648
73,380
118,724
73,447
118,724
73,380
176,648
74,191
57,870
118,724
Proportion of
existing
100.0%
41.5%
67.2%
41.6%
67.2%
41.5%
100.0%
42.0%
32.8%
67.2%
L2 Volume
(1,000 m 3
)
440,187
320,485
366,621
320,552
366,620
320,485
437,634
321,296
305,806
366,621
Proportion of
existing
100.0%
72.8%
83.3%
72.8%
83.3%
72.8%
99.4%
73.0%
69.5%
83.3%
L3 Volume
(1,000 m 3
)
1,930,895 1,530,037 1,576,172 1,530,104 1,576,172 1,514,151 1,928,341 1,680,596 1,515,358 1,560,287
Proportion of
existing
100.0%
79.2%
81.6%
79.2%
81.6%
78.4%
99.9%
87.0%
78.5%
80.8%
L4 Volume
(1,000 m 3
)
2,279,866 1,862,364 1,908,480 1,862,431 1,908,480 1,846,473 2,268,952 2,012,902 1,847,686 1,892,594
(continued)
17 Environmental Flow Definition and Management: A Case Study …
Table 17.14
Mean annual flows at reporting nodes
Reach
Item Scenario
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
Flow
reporting
location
L1 Volume
(1,000 m 3
)
176,648
73,380
118,724
73,447
118,724
73,380
176,648
74,191
57,870
118,724
Proportion of
existing
100.0%
41.5%
67.2%
41.6%
67.2%
41.5%
100.0%
42.0%
32.8%
67.2%
L2 Volume
(1,000 m 3
)
440,187
320,485
366,621
320,552
366,620
320,485
437,634
321,296
305,806
366,621
Proportion of
existing
100.0%
72.8%
83.3%
72.8%
83.3%
72.8%
99.4%
73.0%
69.5%
83.3%
L3 Volume
(1,000 m 3
)
1,930,895 1,530,037 1,576,172 1,530,104 1,576,172 1,514,151 1,928,341 1,680,596 1,515,358 1,560,287
Proportion of
existing
100.0%
79.2%
81.6%
79.2%
81.6%
78.4%
99.9%
87.0%
78.5%
80.8%
L4 Volume
(1,000 m 3
)
2,279,866 1,862,364 1,908,480 1,862,431 1,908,480 1,846,473 2,268,952 2,012,902 1,847,686 1,892,594
(continued)