|
<br />00lS95
<br />
<br />Some of the larger proposed reservoir complexes considered in this study
<br />include: (1) Juniper-Cross Mountain project (Colorado River Water Conservation
<br />Di strict, 1975); (2) Oak Creek Water and Power Project (Oak Creek Power Co.,
<br />1976), which includes the proposed reservoirs, B1acktail, Lower Green Creek, Lower
<br />Middle Creek, Upper Middle Creek, and Chi ldress; (3) Savery-Pot Hook project (U.S.
<br />, Department of the Interior, 1976), which includes the proposed Pot Hook and
<br />Sandstone Reservoirs (original Savery Reservoir location moved, upstream to new
<br />Sandstone Reservoir location); and (4) Yamcolo project (Western Engineers, Inc.;
<br />1975). Numerous mineral resources exist at several of the proposed reservoir sites
<br />(Ward, 1977) and are being considered in the reservoir-construction proposals.
<br />
<br />Table 3.-~Proposed reservoirs used in model analyses
<br />
<br /> Proposed Option
<br />Proposed rese rvo i r Stream storage
<br /> capac i ty 2 3 4
<br /> (acre-feet)
<br />Bearl----------------- Yampa River---------- 11,610 ,x
<br />Cross Mountainl------- Yampa R i verh-------- 142,000 . X X X
<br />Juniperl--~----------- Yampa River----~----- 1,079,990 X X X
<br />Yamcolol~------------- Bear River----------- 9,000 X X X X
<br />B1acktail------------- Yampa R i ver----nn-- 229,250 X X X
<br />Childress------------- Trout Creek---------- 24,160 X X X
<br />Lowe r Green Creek-h-- Green Creek---------- 99,600 X X X
<br />Lower Middle Creek---- Middle Creek---hh-- 25,150 X X ,x
<br />Upper Middle Creek---- Middle Creek---nn-- 102,200 X X X
<br />Pot Hook1------------- Slater Fork--n------ 60,000 X X X
<br />Sandstonel------------ Savery Creek--nn--- 15,500 X X X
<br />Cal ifornia Pa rk L_n__ Elkhead Creek----n-- 36,540 X X
<br />Craig1---------------- Yampa R i ver---n--n- 44,490 X X
<br />Dunckleyl------------- Fi sh Creek----------- 57,090 X X
<br />Grouse Mountain~------ Wi llow Creek--------- 79,260 X X
<br />Hinman Park----------- Elk River------------ 44,040 X X
<br />Pleasant Valleyl----n Yampa Ri vern---n--- 43,220 X X
<br />IProposed diversions for agricultural use.
<br />
<br />The alternatives selected were not exhaustive; rather, they represented a
<br />range of possible configurations for reservoir development in the Yampa River ba-
<br />sin on the basis of known proposed projects. Results of modeling these configura-
<br />tions are representative of a given range of flow and changes in dissolved-solids
<br />concentrations that could occur from the assumed surface-water development in the
<br />basin. Reservoir-development option 3 provides for the highest amount of water
<br />usage while option 4 excluded the large Juniper-Cross Mountain project and pro-'
<br />vides for the smallest water usage (table 2).
<br />
<br />16
<br />
<br />.~:. :.
<br />
<br />. -.)
<br />
<br />"440;"
<br />1-'
<br />.".f'r_
<br />0':'/
<br />
<br />.;.-:
<br />"
<br />~. - ':
<br />
<br />;'i~
<br />'~:'.'U
<br />,N_,',
<br />i";::_.,
<br />,;,,~,..
<br />-.....
<br />'...,'.'
<br />~: .~,;)~
<br />
<br />':"
<br />
<br />:,.;. ,
<br />
<br />'.:::.1
<br />,:!;:>}
<br />;~;: -':,f
<br />
<br />. ".;':?
<br />~;'~".~~'
<br />~f.l\~
<br />," ..>
<br />?~~~
<br />
<br />",".'
<br />.......
<br />
<br />."."
<br />.'-.;:;,:
<br />
<br />~ _:,~:.:;
<br />
<br />F~;t~
<br />;\.~:,:.~
<br />~~~
<br />:'i"~::-:~
<br />. .~.}'.
<br />-'.{;r~-
<br />
<br />~~
<br />
<br />:/X!l:;
<br />~~t~1.
<br />::~*;~
<br />;~;4~'
<br />r;~:1
<br />I
<br />
<br />;:.--':~~:
<br />f!~?~:#
<br />:i)f~
<br />,'~,
<br />
<br />Ij
<br />i-'<:~~
<br />t.}::-....
<br />,-.t;..~
<br />~:~~;
<br />"~'
<br />\..".",
<br />>i...-,:-V,
<br />
<br />..,
<br />'~"
<br />'-.,
<br />:~A~
<br />.;~iJ
<br />
<br />:-':;'':;
<br />;~;.::~-
<br />
<br />'<~2
<br />
<br />'-.--j;.~
<br />',.
<br />
<br />'~"-;\~.
<br />
<br />-'$;',
<br />
<br />;:-.:~~;
<br />~"::';;
<br />i;_ '. ;~,
<br />
<br />.&i_",
<br />
|