Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />, I <br /> <br />Draft - Trout Creek Bioassessment <br /> <br />Rehabilitation of this riffle habitat has produced conditions that allow two criteria to be met <br />under the 15 cfs CWCB winter instream flow compared to the one criterion met at Station 1 at <br />tbis flow. Under a reduced flow of 11 cfs the water level in the channel drops only 0.09 feet. <br />While only one criterion is met at the reduced flow, a second parameter remains close to the. <br />CWCB standard and the third criterion is reduced less than 8%. More importantly, the average <br />depth of 0.3 7 feet is significantly higher than pre-rehabilitation conditions. <br /> <br />Three criteria at Station 2 are met at the 35 cfs CWCB recommended summer flow level as a <br />result of habitat rehabilitation. This compares to one criterion met at Station 1 at this flow. <br />Under a reduced flow of31 cfs the water level in the channel drops only 0.05 feet and all three <br />criteria continue to be met. <br /> <br />In summary, CWCB criteria are more likely to be met as a result of the rehabilitation work. In <br />addition, when met they are met to a greater degree. Criteria that are not met .are close to the <br />CWCB standards and better than pre-existing conditions. <br /> <br />Station 3 <br /> <br />k noted previously, Station 3 is located on a meander channel rather than in riffle habitat. <br />Rehabilitation at this location included both improving the channel WID ratio and stabilizing <br />banks. The improvements to the channel morphology can be seen in Figures 3 and 4. The <br />effects of the proposed 4 cfs diversion, at Station 3, are summarized in Table 6. <br /> <br />34 <br /> <br />F: \ WWEWEl\2000\981-143\Bioassessment\FiDal Report\Report.doc <br /> <br />"j <br />11 <br />