Laserfiche WebLink
Phase IIIa enhancements that impacted the diversion p o structure file included addition of the twenty - <br />seven aggregated irrigation nodes, one explicitly modeled transmountain diversion, and three <br />aggregated municipal and industrial nodes; and replacement of one node representing Wyoming <br />irrigation depletions with three nodes representing the same use as diversions. Appendix D.3 lists the <br />individual structures associated with each aggregated diversion. Appendix D.10 describes inclusion <br />of the aggregated municipal and industrial demands. <br />The data sources for each key field in yampaT.dds are listed in Table 4.2.1c. <br />TABLE 4.2.1C <br />Primary Data Source Summary <br />Key Field <br />Data Source <br />Explicit Diversion ID <br />State Engineer's Office <br />Aggregated Diversion ID <br />User - defined <br />Diversion Capacity <br />State Engineer's Office <br />Acre Irrigated <br />State Engineer's Office <br />Historical Diversions <br />State Engineer's Office <br />System Efficiencies <br />Calculated <br />Return Flow Locations <br />W.W. Wheeler <br />4.2.2 Return Flow Delay File - yampaT.dly <br />The yampaT.dly file describes the estimated re -entry of return flows into the river system. These <br />- lagged times typically represent the combination of surface and subsurface returns. As presented in <br />Table 4.2.2a, five patterns were used; none exceeded six months in duration. Agricultural rights were <br />c assigned return flow Pattern 1. Municipal and industrial rights were assigned return flow Pattern 4. <br />The Pattern 5 return flow was used by the snowmaking diversions. Appendix C, Section 9 <br />documents the development of the irrigation return flow patterns. <br />Phase IIIa enhancements did not affect the return flow delay file. <br />TABLE 4.2.2A <br />Return Flow Properties (percent) <br />Pattern <br />Month 1 <br />Month 2 <br />Month 3 <br />Month 4 <br />Month 5 <br />Month 6 <br />Total <br />1 <br />75.5 <br />17.5 <br />5.5 <br />1.5 <br />0 <br />0 <br />100 <br />2 <br />40 <br />30 <br />20 <br />10 <br />0 <br />0 <br />100 <br />3 <br />51 <br />35 <br />11 <br />3 <br />0 <br />0 <br />100 <br />4 <br />100 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />10 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />F EO <br />100 <br />100 <br />I <br />A separate study was conducted by W.W. Wheeler and Associates to determine the modifications to <br />the return flow lag patterns based on the distance between the stream and the irrigated parcel. It was <br />the conclusion of this study that the single lag pattern (Pattern 1) employed in the Yampa Model is <br />adequate. <br />Diversions 4 -8 <br />