7344 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The effects of agricultural and transmountain diversions were reduced at this site because no proposed diversions were considered for the proposed Hinman Park or Grouse Mountain Reservoirs. In reservoir-development options] and 2, the 50- 1 year flow statistics (tables 12 through 16) have responded to an increased demand 1 from the downstream Yampa main-stem reservoirs, principally Juniper and Cross 1 Mountain Reservoirs, by a slight reduction in the peak flow months (April to June). Reservoir-development options 3 and 4 included the proposed Hinman Park and Grouse Mountain Reservoirs upstream and tended to even out the monthly flow cycle. In reservoir-development option 3, more water had been released from Hinman Park and Grouse Mountain Reservoirs to meet the demand from the Juniper and Cross Mountain Reservoirs during the irrigation season. Reservoir-development option 4 includes the Hinman Park and Grouse Mountain Reservoirs, but the downstream demand from Juniper and Cross Mountain Reservoirs is not included; consequently the flow did not vary with increased water-use allocations. Increasing the water-use allocation percentages generally could increase the number of months that the flow statistics are less than the historical conditions (underscored statistics, tables 12 through 16), especially during the irrigation season (April to October). The upstream reservoir could cause a reduction in peak-flow months and a flow in- crease during the low-flow, high water-use irrigation months. The transmountain diversions have little or no effect in reservoir-develop- ment options 1, 2, and 4. Only in reservoir-development option 3, where the large downstream reservoirs were requiring water to replace the Vidler transmountain diversion water taken from the Steamboat Springs location, can any real effect on the flow statistics be noticed for the Elk River near Trull, Colo. Model-simulated historical monthly streamflows for control point 34 (Trout Creek at mouth) are presented in tables 17 through 21; the general location of this site is shown in figure 1. The effects of agricultural and transmountain di- versions would be negligible in many instances at this control point. The effects of the proposed diversions for the Oak Creek Water and Power Project are indicated by the data for reservoir-development options 2, 3, and 4. The Oak Creek power complex includes only industrial diversions; therefore, very little change in monthly flow statistics can be noticed with changes in water-use allocation (tables 18 through 21). Reservoir-development option-4 monthly streamflows were sl ightly reduced because the Juniper and Cross Mountain Reservoirs were not in operation and did not require upstream inflow to fulfill diversion requirements. 30