Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table I: Data <br />Partv <br />USFS <br /> <br />USFS <br /> <br />Date <br />06/04/2004 <br />06/04/2004 <br /> <br />Q <br />4.45 <br />4.31 <br /> <br />250%-40% <br />11.1 - 1.8 <br />10.8 - 1.7 <br /> <br />Summer(3/3) <br />4,9 <br />2.8 <br /> <br />Winter (2/3) <br />1.2(1) <br /> <br />1.1 (I) <br /> <br />BLM Bureau of Land Management DOW - Division of Wildlife <br />(1) Predicted flow outside of the accuracy range of Manning's Equation. <br /> <br />USFS - United States Forest SelVice <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 instream flow required. In these cases, CWCB staff relies upon the biological <br />expertise of the cooperating agencies to develop a biologic instream 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 (10 #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 />Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun <br />efs 1.5 1.7 2.7 16_0 35.4 4.0 <br /> <br />Jul <br />1.2 <br /> <br />Aug Sep <br />1_1 1_3 <br /> <br />Oct Nav Dee <br />1_6 1_7 1.4 <br /> <br />-4- <br />