Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OD2212 <br /> <br />ABSTRACT <br /> <br />::<:,,'} <br />,,~/ <br />Il <br />i <br />I <br />~".' <br />f{'t:: <br /> <br /> <br />"'\ <br />~l! <br />~f;(;:'t! <br />(:.'..;:.' <br />~;r,,::.;'';, <br />~;\~: <br />~~~ <br />~r.1 <br /> <br />;-:~)~~ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />.~;t;~~ <br />~s;:;:;~ <br />[~i:~' <br /> <br />SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS <br />IN THE SOUTHERN YAMPA RIVER BASIN, COLORADO <br /> <br />By R.S. Parker and 3.M. Norris <br /> <br />Coal m1n1ng operations in northwestern Colorado commonly are located in <br />areas that have minimal available water-resource information. Drainage-basin <br />models can be a method for extending water-resource information to include <br />periods for which there are no records or to transfer the information to areas <br />that have no streamflow-gaging stations. To evaluate the magnitude and vari- <br />ability of the components of the water balance in the small drainage basins <br />monitored, and to provide some method ,for transfer of hydrologic data, the <br />U.S. Geological Survey's Precipitation-Rurioff Modeling System was used for <br />small drainage basins in the southern Yampa River basin to simulate daily mean <br />streamflow using daily precipitation and air-temperature data. For all of the <br />drainage basins except one, period of record used for calibration and veri- <br />fication included water years 1976-81. <br /> <br />The study area was divided into three hydrologic regions, and in each <br />of these regions, three drainage basins were monitored. Two of the drainage <br />basins in each region were used to calibrate the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling <br />System. The model was not calibrated for the third drainage basin in each <br />region; instead, parameter values from the calibrated models were used in the <br />uncalibrated model for the third drainage basin. <br /> <br />Simulated annual volumes of streamflow for drainage basins used in cal- <br />ibration compared well with observed annual values. The difference between <br />observed and simulated annual streamflow volumes ranged from 0.03 to 1.22 <br />inches, although the prediction errors were as large as 100 percent for small <br />streamflow volumes. Individual streamflow hydrographs indicated timing dif- <br />ferences between observed and simulated daily mean streamflow. Observed and <br />simulated annual average streamflows compared'well for the periods of record; <br />but, values of simulated high and low streamflows differed substantially from <br />observed values. Similar results were obtained when calibrated parameter <br />values were transferred to drainage basins that were uncalibrated. The <br />difference between observed and simulated annual streamflow volumes for the <br />model with transferred parameters ranged from 0.0 to l.38 inches per year. <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />ig,l'i <br /> <br />~'.;>~; <br /> <br />The Nation's demand for energy has increased the need for coal. As a <br />result, coal mining has increased in Colorado and particularly in the Yampa <br />River basin of Colorado. Much of the mining is in the southern part of the <br />Yampa River basin at lower elevations. <br /> <br />r://~~ <br /> <br />"..,".' <br />,..-:.,,;' <br />oJ: :'_ ;-".~_ <br />.~,' <br /> <br />,'M,",':' <br />:;.'.~~~'~ <br /> <br />>/,:j <br />',' <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />!.:->i <br />i:;'-~:';: <br />;~(:~f <br />:. !,:;~~ <br /> <br />.'-j <br />