My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Dolores River DRAFT Correlation Report
CWCB
>
Watershed Protection
>
DayForward
>
Dolores River DRAFT Correlation Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2010 11:11:04 AM
Creation date
6/10/2008 1:35:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Watershed Protection
Document ID
hr_0018b
Contract/PO #
PO 06-52
County
Montezuma
Dolores
San Miguel
Stream Name
Dolores River
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Sub-Basin
Upper/Lower Dolores 14030002 & 3
Water Division
7
Title
DRAFT - Dolores River Dialogue Correlation Report
Date
9/5/2006
Prepared By
Dolores River Dialogue
Watershed Pro - Doc Type
Planning Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT <br />deep pools in Reaches 2 and 3) support perennial occupation by native cutthroat <br />trout, but did support the native warm water fishes adapted to low-flow warm water <br />conditions. <br />B. MVIC -Dolores Project (1886-1986) Hydrology and Downstream <br />Ecology <br />Using the MVIC diversion data from CDSS (the same data that were added back <br />into the hydrologic record to simulate total flow at Bedrock in the last section), flow <br />conditions immediately below the MVIC diversions could be simulated for <br />representative dry, average, and wet water years (1974, 1978, and 1979 <br />respectively). Extreme dry and wet water years in 1977 and 1983 were avoided, <br />as they are less representative of expected variability. A detailed analysis and <br />discussion of MVIC effects on total flows, peak flows, and low flows is presented in <br />the larger "Correlation Report"; this section presents the hydrographs from that <br />analysis and summary conclusions about the resulting ecologic effects. <br />With the exception of a few cfs of bypass flows necessary to meet senior water <br />demands in Reach 1, MVIC's diversions took all the river's flow irregardless of <br />total flow for the year (figures 9-11). Because the scour functions of peak flows <br />were still occurring annually, tributary sediments were flushed, deep pools were <br />maintained through all reaches, and channel maintenance functions of high river <br />flows were preserved. Below Bradfield Bridge, the combination of seepage past <br />the MVIC diversions and occasional tributary inflow from ephemeral drainages <br />may have maintained some year-round flow, or at a minimum, standing water in <br />the deeper pools. Native warm water fish populations were able to persist, but <br />their numbers were probably annually limited by habitat availability during the dry <br />periods. Coldwater native species -specifically Colorado River cutthroat trout - <br />were probably not generally found below the MVIC diversion, although it is <br />possible that they occasionally occupied deep pool habitat within the upper three <br />reaches. <br />Cottonwood establishment and germination through Reach 1 was probably limited <br />to wet water years with good late-summer precipitation, when there was a gradual <br />water table recession beneath the sites where cottonwoods became established. <br />Early or rapid stream dry-up without supplemental rainfall would dessicate newly <br />established seedlings. <br />9/5/06 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.