Laserfiche WebLink
upstream of the confluence with the Yampa River. Flow data has been available at the station since May, 1981. Tn <br />February1984 the USGS began operating this station (No. 09249750). The drainage azea a[ this station is <br />approximately 410 square miles. Discharge measurements were made at this station to determine the stage discharge <br />relationship. Hydrographs based on this relationship, have been developed and are presented as Figure 25, <br />Hydrograph -Williams Fork at EC (1981), Figure 26, Flow Comparison -Williams Fork at EC and Hamilton (1982), <br />Figure 27, Williams Fork River Discharge a[ EC - ]983 and Discharge at Hamilton -Mean Monthly, Figure 28, <br />Williams Fork River Discharge at EC - 1984 and Discharge at Hamilton -Mean Monthly, and Figure 29, Williams <br />Fork River Discharge at EC - 1985 and Discharge at Hamilton -Mean Monthly, for the recording period. This data <br />matched fairly well with the USGS data from the Hamilton, Colorado gauging station. For 1985, about 78 percent of <br />the flow occurred during the months of April, May, and June. <br />Examination of topographic maps of the area indicate there is between two (2) and three (3) feet of elevation <br />difference between the Haul Road gauging station and the mouth of the Williams Fork River. Because of this <br />difference in elevation, the stage height on the Williams Fork River at the Haul Road station is occasionally affected <br />by backwater from the Yampa. <br />S rn fines , <br />EC monitors the quantity and quality of the water issuing from two {2) natural springs and one (1) quasi-spring on or <br />adjacent to the mine permit area. The location of these springs is shown on the Hydrologic Monitoring Program <br />Location Map, (Map 11). The names of the three-(3) springs are 1) North, 2) Haxton, and 3) Williams Fork No. 1 <br />Strip Pit. The Williams Fork No. 1 Strip Pit Spring is actually discharged from the old Williams Fork Strip Pit spoils. <br />EC collects monthly flow measurements and measures field quality parameters. None of the flows from the natural <br />springs are substantial, nor are any being used beneficially. <br />A complete spring survey was conducted during the summer of 1982. Each drainage was surveyed, and although <br />there were numerous signs of moisture (reed clumps or soft turf) only the previously mentioned springs were <br />producing measurable quantities of water. Historical flow data for the North and Haxton springs are presented on <br />Table 23, Summary of Spring Discharge -North and Haxton Springs. Historical flow data for the Williams Fork No. <br />1 Strip Pit Discharge is presented on Figure 30, Plot of No. 1 Strip Pit Dischazge - 1983, Figure 31, Plot of No. 1 Strip <br />Pit Discharge - 1984, and Figure 32, Plot of No. 1 Strip Pit Discharge - 1985. <br />The North Spring originates at the head of a small drainage near old State Highway 13. The flow appears to come <br />along the base of thin Pleistocene/Quaternary gravel that caps many of the high terraces in the area. The spring <br />discharge averages about nine-(9) gpm. EC believes that this discharge is insignificant and maintains that monitoring <br />of this spring is unnecessary. <br />The Haxton Spring may originate from the White Sandstone. However, during the measurement period, the flow has <br />always been no more than two-(2) gpm. Therefore, the spring is not a signit`icant resource and need not be monitored. <br />Finally, EC monitors the discharge from the abandoned Williams Fork No. 1 Strip Mine. This water percolates <br />through the regraded spoils of the pit and drains into the Williams Fork River. The mean flow in 1985 was 23 gpm. <br />In 1985, the flow ranged from 5 gpm to 73 pgm. The high flows included direct surface tvnoff. This appears to be <br />"rrtan-made" spring produced by filling a local drainage with mine spoils. <br />Surface WaterLega! Availability <br />The legal availability of water on the Yampa River was evaluated by comparing [he volume of water adjudicated to <br />the average annual runoff. The present diversions from the Yampa River are small in relation to average historical <br />flow. However, if existing conditional rights were to be perfected, the Yampa River would not be able to satisfy all <br />the water rights at the same time under average flow conditions. <br />Average annual Yampa River flow plotted against on-stream direct flow rights (both conditional and absolute) is <br />Permit Revision 04-34 2.04-21 Revised 7/2/04 <br />