Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11 <br />II <br />ill] <br />I; <br />11 <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />include the winter of 1978. Table 5 provides a summary of streamflow <br /> <br /> <br />conditions described in Appendix B and Appendix C at each critical point on <br /> <br /> <br />Gore Creek with and without the proposed Green Mountain water ssles.. <br /> <br />Table 6 illustrates the results of the simulated operation in terms of <br /> <br /> <br />absolute flow reduction and as a percentage of flow. The figures in Table 6 <br /> <br /> <br />show that there is potential for significant reductions in streamflow on Gore <br /> <br /> <br />Creek during the winter months due to diversions made possible by the proposed <br /> <br /> <br />Green Mountain Reservoir water sales. It also shows that, although flow <br /> <br /> <br />reductions occur, Gore Creek is not fully depleted. <br /> <br />Ii] <br />! 11 <br />I <br />I <br />'I.' <br />. . <br /> <br />! . <br /> <br />1:1' <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />;Ii <br />i ' <br />, <br />; <br /> <br />One item not included in the flow model was the instream-f1ow rights which <br /> <br /> <br />exist on Gore Creek. In recent years instream-f10w demands have become <br /> <br />important. The Colorado Water Conservstion Board (CWCB) has filed for rights <br /> <br /> <br />throughout the length of Gore Creek for all months of the year. Although these <br /> <br /> <br />rights may be junior in priority, state and federal regulatory agencies have <br /> <br />insisted on treating the instream requirements as senior rights during <br /> <br />evaluations prior to granting construction permits. Figure 1 shows these <br /> <br />rights and their locations. <br /> <br />I: <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />j 'i <br />'I' <br />I . <br /> <br />it <br />, <br />; <br />~: , . <br />il! <br />: I <br />! <br />I '; <br />ilj <br />, <br />, <br />.:) <br />'. <br />11i~ <br />~ <br /> <br />-12- <br />