|
<br />J
<br />.~
<br />.~
<br />"
<br />,~
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />IHn~.;Lo
<br />
<br />A summary of selected monthly within-basin diversion shortages for irriga-
<br />tion, industrial, and municipal uses (tables 7 and 8) at selected locations in the
<br />basin Is presented in table 10. The summary includes only those reservoir-
<br />development options for which each reservoir or cana.l was assumed to be operating.
<br />This method of analysis was selected because irrigation, industrial, or municipal
<br />diversions generally would be obtained from a specific reservoir or canal. As was
<br />noted earlier, these diversion amounts were computed assuming the entire reservoir
<br />storage (conservation pool to dead storage) to be usable for I rrigation each, year.
<br />In cases of multiple-purpose reservoi rs, part of the storage would be allotted to
<br />each use (for example, industrial Or municipal). The Blacktail Reservoir diversion,
<br />described In table 8 is part of the proposed Oak Creek Power and Water Project and
<br />has an assumed desired maximum diversion of 7,850 acre-feet (9.69 hm3) per month.,
<br />Water from this diversion would be routed into the Trout Creek subbasin (fig. 6)'
<br />and used for hybrid wet-tower, evaporation-pond cooling for an electric-power gen-
<br />eration plant (Oak Creek Power Co., 1976). The modeling results indicate that this
<br />diversi'on requi rement could not be met In most cases.
<br />
<br />There could be a wide range of monthly shortages for the control points
<br />I isted in table 10. Irrigation and municipal diversions from the proposed Dunckley
<br />Reservoir (control point 11), located on Fish Creek, could have the largest per-
<br />centage of shortages, with 94 percent for all options, and industrial diversions
<br />from the proposed Blacktail Reservoir (control point4?), located on the Yampa
<br />River, could have the second largest percentage of shortages. The proposed Juniper
<br />Reservoir (control point 18) could have the largest monthly shortage--304,000
<br />acre-feet (375 hm3) (table 10), and simi larly could have the largest assumed pro-
<br />posed irrigation schedule (table 7), with a maximum proposed diversion of
<br />310,000 acre-feet (383 hm3) per month during July of each year. The only proposed
<br />reservoir which would have no monthly shortages would be Yamcolo Reservoir
<br />(control point 1) located on the Bear River. (The Yampa River is known as the Bear
<br />River above the town of Yampa. See fig. 1.)
<br />
<br />Desired hypothetical streamflows based on approximate streamflows requi red
<br />for fish habitat were arbitrarily selected for many of the control points. Desired
<br />flows were used In the model to permit use of a flow requirement somewhat higher
<br />than an absolute minimum when upstream reservoir-storage levels are not critically
<br />low. A summary of monthly shortages in desired streamflows at,selected control
<br />points is shown in table 11. The desired flow values listed for control points 30,
<br />34, 41, and 42 (fig. 6) are hypothetical in nature, but were based upon knOWledge
<br />of probable minimum streamflow requirements of selected streams. These flow values
<br />were chosen to point out some additional possible shortages for the different
<br />reservoir-configuration options. Approximate locations for each of these sites are
<br />shown in figure 6.
<br />
<br />The desi red flow of 750 ft3/s (21.2 m3/s) at control point 41 (table 11) was
<br />primarily selected based on a flow of 690 ft3/s (19.5 m3/s) required by the Colo-
<br />radoRi ver Compact of 1948 at the upstream Yampa River near Maybe1'l, Colo., loca-
<br />tion (control point 18) and the little Snake River drainage input. The Colorado
<br />River Compact of 1948 specifies a flow of 500,000 scre-feet (615 hm3) per year for
<br />the Yampa River near Maybell, Colo., or approximately 690 ft3/s (19.5 m3/s). Some
<br />consideration of the desired flow for the location at Deerlodge Park, Colo., also
<br />was based on a proposed Wi ld and Scenic River designation within Dinosaur National
<br />Monument (H. J. Belisle, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. written commun., 1976; U.S.
<br />Department of the Interior, 1979a, 1979b).
<br />
<br />37
<br />
<br />~I
<br />Z~!
<br />~~t
<br />~J~
<br />~~
<br />~'"~~
<br />;;."~:p
<br />~';~;~~
<br />~:'~
<br />I
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />~,,:.:i:~
<br />
<br />I
<br />;{f~;'
<br />
<br />:\;-':.:..
<br />
<br />'"t::,:.'':'::
<br />.->,i_.<
<br />;....".:-
<br />.-,,,"~ .,-',
<br />
<br />,
<br />'.';
<br />
<br />r-:,'
<br />
<br />;....
<br />
<br />.:t)!{~
<br />
<br />, '-".-'
<br />,y.,':""
<br />
<br />
<br />:;/'.",
<br />
|