7075 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?. 10 Prior to redistribution, depletions may be specified and subtracted from the flow available for redistribution. If the amount of depletion is greater than the amount made available by daily peak flow reductions, then only the available flow is consumed for that year, and not the entire depletion amount. This was done to avoid negative flows; simulating reservoir operations and power releases was beyond the'scope of this effort. Runs were made for the historic, baseline, and project conditions. 10) Additional runs were preformed with combinations of reduced peaks, depletions, redistributing to power generation periods and also not redistributing. The later reduces the peaks but maintains the historic baseflow levels. The sediment balance for the reach and the number of times the balance was set to zero was observed for each run, in addition to the load delivered to the Green River. The three types of runs preformed are: Reducing April-June peaks, and redistributing to the power generation periods (Juniper Project). Reducing April-June peaks, depleting up to a target volume, and redistributing balance to power generation periods (Juniper Project + 100,000 ac-ft target). Reducing April-June peaks, without any redistribution of the reduced volume (best estimate of a historic 'minimum hydrograph'). This sediment budget procedure should be viewed in the perspective of trends and not absolutes. Any analysis is only as good as the data available and the procedures used within that analysis. The rating curves of measured discharge and sediment values are not perfect, but constitute the data available. Differences between the calculated daily loads should not be construed as what actually occurred for that day; but over a period of months and years the trend has validity. There is usually an amount of art and judgement which is applied in any hydrological study. Often it is not apparent where and when an author applied judgement within a particular study. In the next sections an attempt has been made to explain the procedures and assumptions made. Deerlodge Park Discharge and Historic Annual Flows Elliott (1984) found the sum of the daily flows at the Little Snake near Lily and the Yampa River near Maybell stations to be highly correlated with the daily flows recorded at Deerlodge Park. However, when discharge at Deerlodge Park was near 400 cfs, the regression equation overestimated streamflow by approximately 250. For this reason, Deerlodge Park discharge was estimated using the sum of the two stations and not the predictive equation.