My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10841
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10841
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:14:56 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:34:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.760
Description
Yampa River General
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
1/1/1993
Author
Hydroshpere
Title
Yampa River Basin Alternatives Feasibility Study - Executive Summary - Draft - January 1993
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.
/
38
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />000433 <br /> <br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />that water is allocated to network arcs in accordance with user supplied priorities, that these <br />allocations are always within user-supplied constraints reflecting decree limits and physical <br />diversion capacities, and water supply, and that mass balance is preserved throughout the <br />system. <br /> <br />Modeled inflows represent virgin inflow or net monthly reach gains (or, in some cases, <br />depletions) in various reaches of the Yampa River system. In the headwaters areas, inflows <br />generally represent virgin flows. Lower down in the basin they represent net reach gains or <br />losses computed by mass balance techniques from gage flow records. A regional hydrologic <br />analysis was conducted based on records from USGS streamflow gages and on eStimates from <br />previous studies of water yields at various points in the basin (Morris-Knudson, 1987; Tipton <br />and Kalmbach, 1980). This approach utilized existing stream flow data to derive physical <br />water yield models (regression equations) which accepted tributary area, average elevation, and <br />aspect as independent variables. <br /> <br />Existing basin water uses are generally represented implicitly in the model through the <br />use of gaged flow hydrology rather than virgin flow hydrology. Implicit in this method is the <br />assumption that historical and current water use patterns continue in the future as they have in <br />the past, unaffected by any additional water development represented explicitly in the basin <br />model. Future demands, as well as certain demand adjustments, are represented in the model <br />as demand increments, i.e., only the differences between current demands and future demands <br />are defined in the model. To the degree possible, demands were placed in the model network <br />where they most likely occur, or will occur in the future. <br /> <br />The water rights of the various demands are represented in the model only in terms of <br />their priorities relative to each other and relative to the Juniper Project right. Generally <br />speaking, existing uses are considered senior to the Juniper rights while future uses, both 2015 <br />and 2040 level, are considered junior to the Juniper rights. There are two exceptions to this <br />general rule: 1) certain existing agricultural uses are modeled as having rights junior to the <br />Juniper project, and 2) the Hayden generating station has sufficient rights senior to the Juniper <br />Project to serve its projected long-term demand. In model scenarios representing and instream <br />flow right for the endangered fish, this right was assigned a priority equal to the Juniper <br />Project right. <br /> <br />Reservoir Operations <br /> <br />Three existing reservoirs were operated in the Yampa River Basin Model: Stagecoach <br />Reservoir, Steamboat Lake, and Elkhead Reservoir. The operations of all other existing <br />reservoirs (most of which are located in headwaters areas) were assumed to have negligible <br />effect on flows below Stagecoach Reservoir either because of their small size or because of <br />their mode of operation. The model network was configured to represent nine reservoirs in <br />all. Six of these reservoirs are currently undeveloped and were effectively "turned off' in the <br />model runs except in scenarios in which they were specifically being evaluated. The inactive <br />reservoirs were all included in the model to allow them to easily be operated should their <br />development be considered at a future time. <br /> <br />Reservoir evaporation and storage carryover are automated in the model. Storage and <br />release operations are driven by the relative priorities between res~rvoirs and demands. <br />Reservoirs in the model were allowed to store an amount of water equal to their physical <br />capacity one time each water year; carryover storage in reservoirs was not counted against the <br />reservoirs' annual fill limit. In terms of strict water rights administration this implies that each. <br />modeled reservoir had a refill decree of sufficient size to support storage limited only by <br />available capacity and inflow. <br /> <br />S-12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.