My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00456
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00456
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:50:25 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:38:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/25/2005
Description
ISF Section - Instream Flow Appropriations - East Fork Escalante Creek
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
<br />Table I: Data <br /> <br />Party Date Q 250% -40% Summer (3/3) Winter (2/3) <br />USFS 06/04/2004 4.45 11.1 - 1.8 4,9 1.2(1) <br />USFS 06/04/2004 4,31 10,8 - 1.7 2,8 1.1 (1) <br /> <br />BLM = Bureau of Land Management DOW = Division of Wildlife <br />(1) Predicted flow outside of the accuracy range of Malll1ing's Equation. <br /> <br />USFS = United States Forest Service <br />? = Criteria never met in R2CROSS Staging Table. <br /> <br />Biologic Flow Recommendation <br />The summer flow recommendations, which meet 3 of 3 criteria and are within the accuracy range <br />of the R2CROSS model, range from 4,9 cfs to 2,8 cfs (See Table I), The winter flow <br />recommendations, which meet 2 of 3 criteria but are outside the accuracy range of the R2CROSS <br />model, range from 1.2 to 1.1 cfs (See Table I), Averaging the two summer flow <br />recommendations within range results in a 3,9 cfs recommendation, Averaging the two winter <br />flow recommendations outside the range results in a 1.2 cfs recommendation, It is our belief that <br />recommendations that fall outside of the accuracy range of the model, over 250% of the <br />measured discharge or under 40% of the measured discharge may not give an accurate estimate <br />of the necessary in stream flow required, In these cases, CWCB staff relies upon the biological <br />expertise of the cooperating agencies to develop a biologic in stream flow recommendation, The <br />USFS has indicated that this is a high priority stream segment to them, however, because the <br />winter recommendation falls outside the accuracy range of the R2CROSS model, staff has <br />consulted with the recommending agency, Staff and the recommending agency believe the <br />winter flow recommendation of 1.2 cfs would be appropriate for the Board to file on (See Table <br />I), <br /> <br />Hydrologic Data <br /> <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, The hydrograph below was derived from data collected by the <br />USGS stream gage for Escalante Creek near Delta, CO (ID #09151500), which has a drainage <br />area of 209 square miles (See Gage Summary in Appendix C), The total drainage area of this <br />segment of the East Fork Escalante Creek is approximately 25,7 square miles, The period of <br />record for this gage was 1976 to 1989, the period of record used by staff in their analysis was <br />1976 - 1989, or 14 years of record, Since this gage is heavily impacted by upstream diversions, <br />the estimated average flow was derived by adding average diversion records for the irrigation <br />season (March through October), Table 2 below displays the estimated average flow of East <br />Fork Escalante Creek. <br /> <br />Table 2: Estimated Stream Flow on East Escalante Creek: <br /> <br />Jan <br /> <br />Feb <br /> <br />Mar <br /> <br />Jun <br /> <br />Jul <br /> <br />Oct <br /> <br />Nav <br /> <br />Dee <br /> <br />-4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.