My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03924
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03924
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:52:50 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:02:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.300.11
Description
San Juan River Recovery Program - Coordination Committee
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
8/24/1997
Title
Natural Flow Update
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />2071 <br /> <br />tf/:z5' <br />~r~ 1T1t" <br /> <br />August 24, 1997 <br />San Juan River Basin <br />Modeling Effort <br /> <br />Natural Flow Analysis <br /> <br />The Natural Flow analysis is essentially complete. Through reviews and critiques, tbe analysis <br />has been refined. Revised irrigated acreage and cropping patterns have completed based on <br />recommendations by tbe states of Colorado and New Mexico. Cascade Reservoir, IE, Electra <br />Lake, in tbe Animas River drainage, has been added as an explicitly modeled reservoir. A <br />narrative description or template of the Natural Flow analysis is complete. Tables 1 is the <br />average monthly summary over tbe 24 year period, 1970-93 wy of Natural Flows. Table 2 shows <br />the Gains between selected Natural Flow stations. Figures 1 and 2 are line graphs of these <br />values. <br /> <br />Comparison of Natural Flows with Colorado's CRDSS base flows have been accomplished. Of <br />the 25 Natural Flows core stations, 15 were compared witb CRDSS base flows by plotting <br />montbly differences from Oct 1974 thru Sep 1991. (See Line Graphs) Oftbese, 13 stations <br />were chosen for detailed analysis of the components Natural Flow. These components consist of <br />the gaged flow, major reservoir change in content and evaporation, irrigation consumptive use, <br />minor reservoir evaporation, transbasin diversions and subbasin diversions, livestock depletion <br />and stockpond evaporation, and M&I depletions, These comparisons were plots of average <br />monthly bar charts grouped by depletion type. Of these, 6 stations were deemed to represent the <br />same physical areas so that comparison of depletions would be reasonable. These stations are: <br /> <br />San Juan River at Caracas BOR average annual (1975-91) Natural Flow is only 7900af <br />(1.3%) less than Colorado's base flows. A look at the bar chart and table shows tbat tbe main <br />differences are reservoir evaporation, CD rates, and transbasin and subbasin diversions. Irrigated <br />acres are almost identical but BOR's CD is only 2/3 of Colorado's CD, BOR is shorting these <br />lands based on the Type I study, which relates irrigation shortages to streamflow. <br /> <br />San Juan River at Achuleta BOR average annual (1075-91) Natural Flow is about 36,000af <br />(2.7%) less than Colorado's.base flows. August's and September's average difference is greater <br />than 10%. Almost the entire annual difference is from tbe reservoir evaporation category. <br /> <br />Animas River at Durango BOR average annual (1075-91) Natural Flow is about 1,488af <br />(0.24%) less tban Colorado's base flows. The biggest differences are in reservoir evaporation <br />and accounting for Mineral Resources. Both irrigated acres and irrigation cu look pretty good. I <br />believe the biggest difference in Cascade Reservoir results from about two years of missing EOM <br />data, In this case BOR estimated a normal filling and spilling pattern and Colorado used a <br />straight interpolation of known eom values. <br /> <br />Animas River at Cedar Hill BOR average annual (1075-91) Natural Flow is about 5,100af <br />(0,68%) less than Colorado's base flows. The monthly variations are higher than at the Durango <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.