|
<br />0019GS
<br />
<br />Model Simulations
<br />
<br />The four potential reservoir-development options studied using the multires-
<br />ervoir-flow model are described in table 3, Simulations for each potential reser-
<br />voir-development option were made both with and without the proposed Vidler and
<br />Hog Park transmountain diversions. Also considered in the model simulations were
<br />historical conditions without any proposed transmountain diversions or reservoir
<br />development. Existing senior water rights (Knudsen and Danielson, 1977) in the
<br />basin were not included in these hypothetical analyses, although these' will have
<br />considerable effect on the actual operation of the proposed reservoirs considered.
<br />
<br />Simulated historical annual-mean streamflows that would have resulted from
<br />implementation of reservoir-development options 3 and 4 and observed historical
<br />conditions are presented in figures 10-17 for the following control points: Fig-
<br />ures 10 and 11, control point 39 (Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colo.); fig-
<br />ures 12 and 13, control point 28 (Yampa River at Craig, Colo;); figures 14 and 15,
<br />control point 18 (Yampa River near Maybell, Colo.t; and figures 16 and lJ, control
<br />point 42 (Little Snake River near Lily, Colo.). Reservoir-development option 3
<br />was selected for illustrative purposes because it provides larger amounts of water
<br />consumption than reservoir-development options 1 and 2. Reservoir-development
<br />option 4 was selected because, it provided for not only the smallest total storage
<br />volume (table 3) but also the greatest number of proposed reservoirs. The results
<br />shown in figures 10, 12, 14, and 16 represent streamflows with proposed diversions
<br />for irrigation, industrial, and municipal diversions but without proposed trans-
<br />mountain diversions. The results in figures 11, 13, 15, and 17 represent stream-
<br />flows with all proposed diversions.
<br />
<br />Although historical annual-mean streamflows are presented in figures 10
<br />through 17, data for hIstorical mean monthly streamflows also are available; the
<br />monthly data were not presented because of the large volume--600 monthly values
<br />for each reservoir-development option. The largest differences between historical
<br />and simulated historical streamflows for the various reservoir-development options
<br />would occur along the Yampa River (figs. 10 through 15) because of the larger
<br />number of reservoirs proposed for this part of the Yampa River basin.
<br />
<br />The simulation results shown in figures 14 and 15 for control point 18 (Yampa
<br />RIver near Maybel1, Colo.) Include the large diversion requirements from the pro-
<br />posed Juniper Reservoir for reservoir-development option 3. The results for his-
<br />torical conditions and reservoir-development option 4 did not include diversions
<br />from the proposed Juniper Reservoir, which explains why these results plot signi-
<br />ficantly higher than the simulation option for configuration 3. The simulation
<br />results shown in figures 17 and 18 for control point 42 (Little Snake River near
<br />Li Iy, Colo.) indicate 1 ittle variation between the various, reservoir-development
<br />options. The Little Snake River subbasin includes only two proposed reservoirs
<br />(Sandstone and Pot Hook) and the proposed Hog Park transmountain diversion with
<br />the proposed annual diversion of 31,000 acre-feet (38.3 hm3). The effects of the
<br />proposed Vidler transmountain diversion would be most pronounced at control
<br />point 39 (Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colo.) where mean annual streamflow
<br />would have been less than 10 ft3js (0.28 m3js) during several years (fig. 11).
<br />The effects of the proposed Vidler transmountain diversion would decrease at
<br />downstream control points along the Yampa River (figs. 13 and 15). The effects of
<br />the proposed Hog Park transmountain diversion would be minor at control point 42
<br />(Li t tIe Sn a ke Rive r nea r Li I y, Co I 0.) (f i g. 17).
<br />
<br />"
<br />~
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />"
<br />,.
<br />
<br />:~':
<br />
<br />.....,'
<br />
<br />~, '
<br />~;..
<br />
<br />~:x:
<br />:,i;
<br />
<br />'~'.
<br />;Wi
<br />
<br />:.:~~
<br />
<br />',:'.;':..
<br />,. -.;~
<br />
<br />":-:'.
<br />:. "'~-'.
<br />
<br />;.; ~~:~
<br />::?X~
<br />;~': ,,::,~
<br />~,:::'::~
<br />J&~
<br />;.; .;~.,,:
<br />~:~?~
<br />~t
<br />~
<br />!~:st~~
<br />:,.t.?:;~
<br />i:~;;.:-:
<br />.~~.::;.:,
<br />'....<;.,
<br />-::,,::,.,
<br />ii<;;,:'~
<br />
<br />~:-'.7"~~;
<br />
<br />';'.::,;
<br />....,-..
<br />
<br />}"../'
<br />
<br />:.... ," .;~"
<br />
<br />,-t;...~.,
<br />
<br />'- . -.:~.
<br />
<br />27
<br />
<br />
|