My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
EIS Arapahoe & Roosevelt National Forest, Pawnee National Grassland
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
EIS Arapahoe & Roosevelt National Forest, Pawnee National Grassland
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:38:28 PM
Creation date
6/15/2009 11:45:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.250
Description
Water Issues
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Author
USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region
Title
EIS Arapahoe & Roosevelt National Forest, Pawnee National Grassland
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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 />SPECIALIST REPORT ON WATER YIELD <br />? Routt Forest Pian Revision <br />WATER YIELD METHODS <br />BASELINE WATER YIELD <br />Baseline water yield for the Routt National Forest was determined using USGS gage station <br />records from fourteen gages which are on or near the forest. Only gages which represent <br />relatively undisturbed basins, or which had records prior to significant anthropogenic distur- <br />bances were used. All gages had a minimum of ten yeai•s of record. The Quattro Pro spread- <br />sheet program (Borland, 1993) was used for all statistical analysis. <br />The first step was to determine annual water yield in feet per acre for watersheds with USGS <br />stream gages. This was based on the average annual discharge divided by the drainage azea. <br />Results were highly variable suggesting that other factors such as the average annual precipita- <br />tion influenced the quantity of water produced in different basins. <br />To determine the relationship between annual precipitation and baseline water yield, the average <br />annual runoff was regressed against the average annual precipitation for those watersheds with <br />USGS gages. The average annual precipitation was determined using the Colorado Average <br />Annual Precipitation 1951-1980 1:500.000 scale map (Colorado Climate Center, 1984). The <br />isohyetal lines from this map were digitized into the GIS system and then overlayed with the <br />sixth level watersheds. The acres within each precipitation zone were used to calculate a <br />weighted mean annual precipitation for the sixth level watersheds with USGS stream gages. <br />For gages which did not lie on the sixth level watershed boundary, estimates were made of how <br />much of the area fell within different precipitatioii ranges. In this situation, generally all of the <br />acres in the higher precipitation ranges were considered to be part of the watershed, and acres <br />within the lower precipitation ranges were reduced. For gages below the forest boundary, <br />estimates were made of how much of the non-USFS land was in a given precipitation zone using <br />the precipitation map cited above. Generally the non-USFS land was in the lower precipitation <br />ranges. <br />Regressing the mean weighted annual precipitation against baseline water yield developed a <br />regression model with mean annual precipitation as the independent variable, and water yield in <br />feet per acre as the dependent variable. The regression model had an R-square of 0.87, and a <br />standard enor of 0.3 feet. The high R-square indicates that the weighted mean annual precipita- <br />tion explains 87 percent of the variability in water yield from undisturbed basins. <br />For the purposes of the forest plan, baseline water yield was modeled for the fourth level <br />watersheds which include the Litde Snake, North Platte, Upper Colorado, and Yampa river <br />basins. A weighted mean annual precipitation for each of the major river basins was calculated <br />based on the number of acres in each precipitation zone. The resulting weighted mean annual <br />precipitation was then plugged into the regression model developed from the USGS stream gage <br />?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.