Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. 000'922 <br /> <br />November 4, 1996 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Yamcolo to Phillips Creek. The differenl flow amounls were able to be exerted in the Phase II model <br />lhrough the demand file (ifa), which has a separale right and record for each of lhe three nodes. Thus the <br />first node had a demand of 5 cfs, and the second and third node had a demand of 5 cfs during winter and <br />12 cfs during summer. (This appears 10 be an error since we find no indicalion in the water rights <br />database or the bound labulalion that the Yamcolo-to-Phillips right varies through the year; we believe <br />the correct demand is 12 cfs throughout the year.) Now that we are representing inslream flow righls as <br />a reach wilh only one water right, only one demand can be entered in the if a file to control the entire <br />reach. In consultation wilh lhe State, it was decided 10 use 12 cfs as the decreed amounl in lhe .ifr file, <br />and a demand of 5 cfs in winter and 12 cfs in summer, for structure 582404 in the Task 3.01 and Phase <br />III model. This approach will probably come closest 10 effecling the same water allocation as lhe Phase <br />II model wilhout adding a new struclure, because calls from the downstream right in the Phase II model <br />control junior rights in the upstream instream flow reach anyway. Another way of thinking of it is the <br />upslream reach has 100 high a summer flow in lhe model, and lhe downstream reach has too Iowa winter <br />flow in the model. <br /> <br />Results <br /> <br />. The inslream flow enhancements resulted in 15 instream flow reaches compared to 73 instream flow <br />points used in the Phase II model. <br /> <br />. Results of the enhanced statemod Yampa basin model were compared to the Phase II results for two <br />runs: the historical and calculated. The differences between Phase II and the instream flow <br />enhancemenl for the historical scenario are shown in Exhibit 2. The differences between the Phase II <br />and the instream flow enhancement for the calculaled scenario are shown in Exhibit 3. <br /> <br />The two exhibits have the same format: for each structure in the enhanced model, there is a line <br />showing the structure number, name, and difference in the flow controlled by that structure in lhe <br />two models. The difference is calculated as the enhanced model value minus Phase II model value. <br />Note that all diversion structures show a difference of zero. The instream flow structures show a <br />positive difference because for each instream flow structure in the enhanced model, there is no <br />structure with exaclly the same i.d. in the Phase II model. (For example, the enhanced model <br />structure 582404 Bear River MSF replaces structures 582404.01,582404.02, and 582404.03 in lhe <br />Phase II modeL) The reported difference between the two models for structure 582404 is lhe <br />enhanced model value (5421) less zero. The list of enhanced model struclures is followed in lhe <br />exhibits by a list of structures in the Phase II model which are not in the enhanced model. This list <br />includes the *.0 I, * .02, elc. structures. Their reported differences are negative, because the <br />difference is calculated, for example, as the enhanced model value for slructure 582404.0 I (zero) <br />less the Phase II model value for structure 582404.0 I (3605). <br /> <br />!l should be understood thallhe flow value for an instream flow slruclure in the enhanced model is <br />the minimum controlled by the righl through the entire instream flow reach. <br />