Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1373 <br /> <br />In addition to the minimum bypass requirarents at each diversion draining <br />into the Fryingpan River, a mi.n:inmI flow requirarent IlUlst be rret at the <br />river gaging station, "Fryingpan River at Th:Il1asville" (Photo on the <br />fo!lowing page). This mi.n:inmI requirenent .is as follows: April - 100. <br />ft Is, May - ISO. ft3/s, June - 2DD ftj/s, and July - 100 ft3/s, or the <br />natural flow, whichever is less. During w:lter year 1981, the flow was <br />equal to the natural and less than the set ~ates on rrany occasions. <br />When this occurred the diversions \'A9I"e decreased and in scrne cases shut <br />down with only the Hunter system, which drains into the RJaring Fork <br />River, allCM3d to divert w:lter through the system to Boustead Tlmnel. <br /> <br />Exhibit 2 shows the flows at the Thanasville river gaging station and <br />too mininnlm requirarents. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Hunter creek System <br /> <br />The Hunter creek system w:lS operated acrording to the Aspen/Pitkin <br />o:>unty Settlarent Agreeroent, which requires the project to annually <br />divert 3,0.0.0. acre-feet less than othe:rwise \\Ould have been diverted fran <br />the Hunter creek drainage basin. The settlement agreement bypasses, <br />until such time as a 3,0.0.0. acre-foot exchal'\9'e agreement with the Twin <br />IaY.JS FeseIVOir and canal Cc::IIpany is iroplE!ljented, shall be in addition <br />to water bypassed to meet OOwnstrearn senio!:1 calls, project mi.n:inmI flow <br />bypasses, or w:lter spilled due to limitations on physical capacity of <br />project diversion facilities. 'lb aca:rrplish this~ the bypass rate on <br />Hunter creek was increased to approximately 50. ft /s. The flow in <br />excess of the required m.iniJm.In bypass on Hunter creek w:lS 2,810. acre- <br />feet. No Narre creek had 460. acre-feet in excess of mi.n:inmI flow, and <br />Midway creek had 760. acre-feet. SaTe of the figures \'A9I"e estimated <br />when debris build up 00 the trashracks, and when all the flCM w:lS going <br />over the ogees and rot t.hrou;Jh the rreasuring devices. The pmtographs <br />on page 8 sOOw the lpstrearn effect of the before and after cleaning of <br />the trashracks. '!'he three stations producefj a total of 4,0.30. acre-feet <br />of water Cbwnstrearn to the ~arin3' Fork Ri'ler in excess of the min:inn.In <br />streamflCM requirarents. <br /> <br />Table 3 sOOws the Hunter creek system flows in excess of mi.n:inmI bypass <br />requirenents. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Project Diversions <br /> <br />The water year 1981 outlook predicted a prdject diversion of 67,90.0. <br />acre-feet under the II'Ost probable runoff o::!riditions. The February 1, <br />March 1, April 1 and May 1 forecasts, baeeq on Soil conservation Service <br />snow CXlurse data, projected diversions of 46,70.0. acre-feet, 25,0.0.0. acre- <br />feet, 35,0.0.0. acre-feet, and 26,0.0.0. acre-feet, respectively. The actual <br />diversion was 34,70.,0 acre-feet, as ITeasured at the outlet portal of 3 <br />Charles H. Boustead Tunnel. The rraxirnum mean daily i.n;lort was 840. ft Is <br />on June 6, 1981, with a rraxirnum instantanedus peak of 960. ft3/s on the <br />same day. lleplacement releases were not ~e for out.-of-priority <br />project diversion. Diversions ended before a senior call was made. The <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />6 <br />