Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table 7.--Summary of monthly streamflows, <br />control point 39 (Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colo.)" <br />for simulated historical conditions,incZuding 100 percent <br />of transmountain diversions, and for historical conditions <br /> <br />[FLOW VALUES: A=MEAN; B=MEDIAN; and C=80-PERCENT EXCEEDENCE. Underscored <br />values are less than historical conditions without transmountain diversions] <br />FLOW MONTHLY FLOWS, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND <br />VALUES OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT <br /> SIMULATED HISTORICAL COND IT IONS <br />A 130 122 104 100 101 158 669 1716 1760 348 145 101 <br />B 120 119 102 97 98 144 615 1565 1724 276 134 88 <br />C 83 97 87 82 83 111 419 1270 1128 197 92 69 <br />SIMULATED HISTORICAL CONDITIONS WITH 100 PERCENT OF TRANSMOUNTAIN DIVERSIONS <br />A 53 44 27 23 23 80 286 1325 1373 69 69 28 <br />B 42 4f 24 18 19 66 224 1174 1332 0 56 10 <br />C 2- ~ 9 4" 2- .ll 28 879 737 0 14 0 <br /> HISTORICAL STREAMFLOWS CALCULATED FROM GAGING-STATION RECORDS <br />A 136 126 104 101 104 172 681 1771 1821 345 150 106 <br />B 132 121 100 100 100 159 630 1755 1]20 260 136 90 <br />C 87 97 87 82 85 115 428 1288 1074 163 90 66 <br /> <br />The underscored values in tables 8 through 11 indicate a reduction in the <br />historical flow for any development condition. Only the nonirrigation months of <br />December or January occasionally showed no decrease in flow statistics. Generally, <br />as the reservoir-development options and percentage of water-use allocation in- <br />creased, the flow volume lessened. Reservoir-development option 4 indicated the <br />most significant reduction in flow as a result of the absence of demand from Juni- <br />per and Cross Mountain Reservoirs downstream on the Yampa River. Without the <br />demand from these reservoirs, the flow at this site was reduced and more water <br />remained in the upstream reservoirs. <br /> <br />20 <br />