Laserfiche WebLink
For this segment of stream, three data sets were collected with the results shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 <br />shows who collected the data (Party), the date the data was collected (Date), the measured discharge at the <br />time of the sur~~ey (Q), the accuracy range of the predicted flows based on Manning's Equation (240% and <br />40% of Q), the summer flow recommendation based on meeting 3 of 3 hydraulic criteria and the winter flow <br />recommendation based upon 2 of 3 hydraulic criteria. <br />Party Date Q 250%-40% Summer (3/3) Winter (2/3) <br />BLM 8/23/2005 3.89 9.7 1.6 4.2 NA <br />BLM 8/23/2005 3.66 9.1 1.5 8.1 NA <br />BLM 8/24/2004 2.99 7.5 - 1.2 5.0 NA <br />BLM =Bureau of Land Management DOW =Division of Wildlife <br />(1) Predicted flow outside of the aocuracy range of Manning's Equation. ? =Criteria never met in R2CROSS Staging Txble. <br />Table 1: R2 Cross Data <br />The summer flow recommendation, which meets 3 of 3 criteria and is within the accuracy range of the <br />R2CROSS model is 5.50 cfs. This recommendation was derived by averaging the results of the three data <br />sets. It is our belief that recommendations that fall outside of the accuracy range of the model, over 250% <br />of the measured discharge or under 40% of the measured discharge, may not give an accurate estimate of <br />the necessary instream flow required. <br />Hydrologic Data <br />After receiving the cooperating agency's biologic recommendation, the CWCB staff conducted an <br />evaluation of the stream hydrology to determine if water was physically available for an instream flow <br />appropriation. The hydrograph below was derived from data collected by the USGS stream gage for Badger <br />Creek, Lower Station near Howard, CO (ID #07093775), which has a drainage area of 211 square miles <br />(See Gage Summary in Appendix). The total drainage area of the Badger Creek Drainage is approximately <br />211 square miles. The period of record for this gage was 1980-2003, the period of record used by staff in <br />their analysis was 1980-2003, or 24 years of record. Table 2 and Figure 1; display the estimated stream flow <br />of Badger Creek in terms of a percentage of exceedence and average discharge. <br />Table 2: Estimated flow Badger Creek in terms of percent exceedence (cfs) <br /> Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec <br />1% 10.04 14.48 22 108.3 66.61 31 27.74 27 10.1 12 13 11 <br />5% 8.82 9.5 17 38 37 25 16 15 8.55 10 11 9.5 <br />10% 7.54 8.5 14 20 28 20 12 11 7.8 9.2 9.6 8.6 <br />20% 6.5 6.6 10 14 18 12 9.1 8.8 6.6 7.8 8.5 7.5 <br />50% 5.2 5.2 7.7 9.8 9.8 7.9 i.9 6.3 5.3 6 7.2 5.5 <br />80% 3.9 4.5 5.62 7.6 6.9 5.6 4.7 4.6 4.2 5 5.8 4.1 <br />90% 3.5 3.92 4.9 6.7 6.2 5.1 4.3 3.5 3.6 4.6 5.3 3.3 <br />95% 3.2 3.5 4.5 6.2 5.7 4.6 3.6 3.06 3.2 4.3 5 3 <br />99% 2.09 1.5 4 5.19 5.2 4.2 3.2 2.6 0.73 2.06 4 2.28 <br />