Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />Table 6.--ControZ points for which resuZts of modeZ simuZations are presented <br /> <br />Control <br />point <br /> <br />Locat i on <br /> <br />Significance <br /> <br />39 <br /> <br />38 <br /> <br />34 <br />28 <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />43 <br /> <br />41 <br /> <br />Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colo. <br />(at gaging station 09239500). <br /> <br />Elk River near Trull, Colo. (at gaging <br />station 09242500). <br /> <br />Trout Creek at mouth------------------- <br /> <br />Yampa River at Craig, Colo. (down- <br />stream from proposed Craig <br />Reservoir). <br /> <br />Confluence of Yampa River and <br />Milk Creek. <br /> <br />Yampa River near Maybell, Colo. (at <br />gaging station 09251000; downstream <br />from proposed Juniper Reservoir). <br /> <br />Yampa River nea r Li 1 y, Co I o. (down- <br />stream from proposed Cross Mountain <br />Reservoir). <br /> <br />Li ttle Snake River near Baggs, Wyo. <br />(near gaging station 09259700). <br /> <br />Yampa River near Deerlodge Park, <br />Colo. <br /> <br />Streamflow-gaging-station <br />control; transmountain <br />diversion. <br /> <br />Streamflow-gaging-station <br />control; fish habitat. <br /> <br />F ish ha b i ta t . <br /> <br />Industrial and municipal <br />supplies; fish habitat. <br /> <br />Fish habi tat. <br /> <br />Streamflow-gaging-station <br />control; fish habitat. <br /> <br />Fish habitat. <br /> <br />Streamflow-gaging-station <br />control; transmountain <br />diversion. <br /> <br />Commitments for Upper <br />Colorado River Basin <br />Compact. <br /> <br />Model-simulated historical monthly streamflows for control point 39 (Yampa <br />River at Steamboat Springs, Colo.) are presented in tables 7 through 11. Simulated <br />historical monthly mean streamflows without proposed transmountain diversions vary <br />from +1 to -8 percent and have an average absolute variation of 3 percent of the <br />monthly streamflows calculated from streamflow-gaging-station records, which indi- <br />cates that the model can reasonably predict conditions at this control point. The <br />average absolute variation is computed by summing the individual absolute values <br />of percentage variations for a given location and model conditions and then divid- <br />ing by the number of data points. <br /> <br />19 <br />