Summary of Yampa River Basin Operation & Management Plan Work Group Meeting

Home Browse Search

0 0 --- MEMORANDUM - Background for August 30, 1995 Meeting Page 3 Figure 5 Figure 5 suggests a shift in the demand impact on the hydrograph which would be realized if storage would be constructed to meet the average year demand levels. This would be a suggestion for the pattern of development potential which should be protected when considering an instream flow filing. Figure 6 USFWS recommendations for flows for the endangered fishes in the Yampa River are somewhat open to interpretation. We have tried to show what water might be necessary in the Yampa River to meet those needs under future demand conditions in a dry year. Additionally, Figure 6 suggests a pattern of actual diversion to storage during the peak flows which would be necessary to assure water for flow augmentation. As this is the dry year scenario the diversions to storage would actually occur in the following year that the releases were made for fish flow augmentation. Note the scale differs from Figure 7. Figure 7 Figure 7 depicts the amount of diversions to storage and releases necessary to satisfy USFWS flow recommendations in an average year. This Figure implies this amount of storage should be available for fish flow augmentation on an annual basis. General Comments Figures 8 through 10 We have attempted to show the instream flow filings and development reservations for the three options of flow protection under consideration by the CWCB. Our interpretation may be improved upon as the development of how the various water rights may be structured and administration planned. Each of the scenarios may have slightly different levels of development protection either by exclusion from the instream flow filing, or by defining portions of the instream flow as modifiable ( "paragraph 4 water") depending how the CWCB elects to address the question of uncertainty of what Colorado's compact entitlements are (somewhere between 3.079 and 3.855 MAF).