Laserfiche WebLink
BLM 1 10/8/2008 1 35.10 1 87.8-14.0 1 17.10 1 14.13 <br />The summer flow recommendation, which met 3 of 3 criteria and is within the accuracy range of <br />the R2CROSS model is 26.0 cfs. The summer flow recommendation was derived by averaging <br />the results of the data sets. The shoulder period from October 1 — November 15 was lowered <br />from 26.0 cfs to 22.0 cfs because of water availability constraints. The winter flow amount, <br />which meets 2 of 3 criteria, is 14.1 cfs but the recommend amount has been lowered to 13.5 cfs <br />due to water availability constraints. <br />Hydrologic Data and Analysis <br />After receiving the cooperating agency's biologic recommendation, the CWCB staff conducted <br />an evaluation of the stream hydrology to determine if water was physically available for an <br />instream flow appropriation. This evaluation was done through a computation that is, in essence, <br />a "water balance ". In concept a "water balance" computation can be viewed as an accounting <br />exercise. When done in its most rigorous form, the water balance parses precipitation into all the <br />avenues water pursues after it is deposited as rain, snow, or ice. In other words, given a specified <br />amount of water deposition (input), the balance tries to account for all water depletions (losses) <br />until a selected end point is reached. Water losses include depletions due to evaporation and <br />transpiration, deliveries into ground water storage, temporary surface storage, incorporations into <br />plant and animal tissue and so forth. These losses are individually or collectively subtracted <br />from the input to reveal the net amount of stream runoff as represented by the discharge <br />measured by stream gages. Of course, the measured stream flow need not be the end point of <br />interest; indeed, when looking at issues of water use to extinction stream flow measurements <br />may only describe intermediate steps in the complex accounting process that is a water balance <br />carried out to a net value of zero. <br />In its analysis, CWCB staff has attempted to use this idea of balancing inputs and losses to <br />determine if water is available for the recommended Instream Flow Appropriation. Of course, <br />this analysis must be a practical exercise rather than a lengthy, and costly, scientific <br />investigation. As a result, staff has simplified the process by lumping together some variables <br />and employing certain rational and scientifically supportable assumptions. The process may be <br />described through the following description of the steps used to complete the evaluation for this <br />particular stream. <br />The first step required in determining water availability is a determination of the hydrologic <br />regime at the Lower Terminus (LT) of the recommended ISF reach. In the best case this means <br />looking at the data from a gage at the LT. Further, this data, in the best case, has been collected <br />for a long period of time (the longer the better) including wet and dry periods. In the case of <br />Cebolla Cr — Lower no such gage is available at the LT; although flows have been gaged on <br />Cebolla Creek. A gage was located in the upstream reaches (Cebolla Cr. nr Lake City) and two <br />were in very downstream positions (Cebolla Cr. near Powderhorn and Cebolla Cr. at <br />Powderhorn). However, the data from these gages is of limited value being both old and a short <br />Period of Record (POR). While the use of some of this data might be possible, it made sense to <br />examine nearby drainages for gages with better data records that could serve as "representative" <br />gage stations. <br />-4- <br />