Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r..!/{ ~"'''j -I'kG//H() (If- cd, <br />~SPI'/ -f?-.:J"'~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />j. William Me-Donald <br />DireClor <br /> <br />TO: Bill McDonald <br />Gene Jencsok <br /> <br />FROM: Randy Seaholm ~ <br />DATE: July l7, 1989 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: McElmo Creek Hydrology <br /> <br />As requested, I <br />in greater detail. <br />follows: <br /> <br />have evaluated the McElmo Creek hydrology <br />The results of this evaluation are as <br /> <br />Stream Gaqes <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The USGS records list ten stream gaging stations in the <br />McElmo Creek Basin. Gage records for McElmo Creek were first <br />started in 1951 with the establishment of the stateline <br />station. In-depth gaging of the basin began in 1971. <br />Attachment 1 shows the ten gaging stations in downstream order <br />along with the corresponding periOd of record and the annual <br />discharge values in acre feet for water years 1975, 77, 79, 80, <br />8l, 82 and 1983. The relatively dry years were 1977 and 1981. <br />The average water years 1975 and 1982. The relatively wet <br />years were 1980, 1982 and 1983. <br /> <br />The stream gaging which has occurred in the basin is all <br />downstream of heavily irrigated areas and is therefore <br />reflective of significant amounts of irrigation and municipal <br />return flows. You will note when reviewing the gage record <br />that the stream continually gains as you proceed downstream. <br />This gaining trend here is somewhat unusual in that it occurs <br />despite the decreasing significance of the tributaries coming <br />into the mainstem of McElmo Creek, a generally decreasing <br />precipitation pattern and additional depletions. In light of <br />these factors the stream accretions which do occur then must be <br />attributable primarily to the irrigation return flows. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Attachments 2 through l4 show the average daily and monthly <br />flows for water years 1981 and 1982. Please note the <br />relatively uniform nature of the flows from month to month in <br />the different years reviewed, This is a further indicat~RnA <br />that the hydrograph is significantly influenced by @qJ~~~n <br />return flows. <br /> <br />0456E'" <br />