WSP06180

• File Number: 8271.200
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Development and History - UCRB 13a Assessment
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 5/1/1979
• Author: US Fish and Wildlife
• Title: A Report on Use of A Regional Reconnaissance Methodology to Determine Instream Flow Effects As Applied to the Analysis of Impacts of Coal and Oil Shale --- part 2 of 2 - Attachment A through end
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I
,
II
il
:.1
'I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.

I
I
I
I
I

.

4.

Drop the Yampa River at Steamboat Springs_ While it has a
considerably larger watershed area than the Elk River (604
square miles as compared to 206). in average annual flow they
are fairly close in size, sufficiently close so that habttat
differences would not be particularly significant when com-
paring those of the reach from Steamboat Springs to Yampa. CO.
(They could be quite signfftcant. however. if one were compar-
ing a meandering. meadow reach. such as exists for many miles
upstream from Steamboat Springs, with the ~Elk River habi-
tat). .

Adopt the Yampa River at Hayden as the USGS gaging stations
I
for a reach extending from Mt. Harrts to Hayden, CO. This
reach would represent similar streams in Group I, Class (d).
We already have a representative reach in this group and
class. namely. the San Juan River near Archuleta. Flows in
thts reach of the San Juan River are controlled by NavajO Dam.
however; and thus, it is not typical of a free-flowing river.
The Yampa in the vicinity of Hayden would serve as a prototype
for a simulated reach representing reaches in the vicinity of
the following stations:

....
00
1\;
00

5.

Statton

Watershed
Area (sq.m1.)

Average
Annual Flow (cfs)

Class (c)
Animas River near Durango
Class (d)
Gunnison Rtver near Gunnison
Yampa River near Hayden.

692

846.0

779.0
1,047.0

1,012
1,430

In additfon to the foregofng suggestions related to representative
reaches in Group I. it may be desirable to replace the NF White River
at Buford, whfch I erroneously put in Group III. Class (b). with a bona
fide stream in that group and class. If we are to restrict our pro~
tYPe streams and related gaging statfons in Colorado to the watersheds
mentioned at the outset of this letter, our choice would boil down to
the gage on Pfceance Creek below ~an Gulch, which has a watershed of
485 square miles but an average annual flow of only 15.5 cfs. That
combination makes it unsuited to represent any of the other Colorado
streams in Group III. Class (b) for which I have flow data. I doubt
that it would be worthwhile to select Piceance Creek as a representative
reach.

The remainder of the reaches previously selected and defined remain the
same, with the exception that the reach in the vicinity of the gage on
the Colorado River at Cameo would be revised. as we discussed last.
Tuesday. to extend only from Rifle to the Plateau Creek confluence.

3