|
<br />r
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />&
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />'000209
<br />
<br />In addition to the CWCB instream flows on the 45 Group 1 streams, the USFS is
<br />requesting the protection of higher flows between May 1 and July 15 of each year on 17
<br />streams. They are asking for protection to provide at least 70 % of the bankfull disch;;
<br />and as much as 120 % of the bankfull discharge, On September 30,1997, the USFS
<br />provided an explanation of their methodology and need for these flows along with high
<br />flow amounts. The primary need for these higher flows is to help move sediment, much
<br />of which would come from highway sanding, through the system, The other major
<br />reason given was to help protect the habitat of the endangered greenback cutthroat trout if
<br />it were present. Requests are mainly on streams where the watersheds are a major
<br />recreational resource in the area, The State's primary concern (and that of the water users
<br />as well) is that enough water remains above the QP to meet the needs of any development
<br />which might be likely to occur, For the most part, this water development will have to
<br />occur during spring runoff either directly or by exchange. As a result, there is a need to
<br />define the high flow amounts and the duration of that protection. This issue will be
<br />discussed in detail on each of the 17 streams at the October 27, 1997 meeting.
<br />
<br />The Grouphas worked with the CDOW to determine if the ~~~!!R,ackpltthrO>>-t
<br />tro,utis preselltiA~fth,ese stream~. Based on information from the CDOW, the
<br />presence of greenback cutthroat trout has only been confirmed in Lake Fork Creek.
<br />There is no documented evidence at the CDOW to suggest that the greenback cutthroat
<br />trout exist in the other streams in question, A conclusion on this issue needs to be reached
<br />with the USFS,
<br />
<br />Please note on streams where the Group recommends that onlv the CWCB
<br />instream flow is protected at the QP, it is the opinion ofthe Group that this can be
<br />done with no adverse impact to any upstream development potential above the QP.
<br />Listed below stream by stream are the recommendations of the Group:
<br />
<br />~ 17G
<br />
<br />,.,..., . ~
<br />.>> \ I ... oS- vi"
<br />Camp Creek , !oS"o",lrl~;",..~ I
<br />USFS claim dropped a.1J2., ~ 6" af". ~.. ",", j ... '\ f f
<br />, II M O~ #",r e- .'\ ~
<br />' c.,./",-..dv :Sf''''~ - /t....,~ "".,slt; "... '" '/.,'" f~ II ,;.
<br />South Catamount ;nC'.n"~-r- _ /'1.+ ~~ (!,bPfL. It'> t ').... {' 10 ( J
<br />QP at sec 23 - 13S - 69W; at point just below the Glen Cove confluence f)".." ~ (. \ "t!
<br />Amount: A CWCB flow recommendation for a base flow,of2,O cfs from Oct. 16 to P.
<br />April 15, and 2,6 cfs from April 16 to October 15 is accepted and needed for fish
<br />purposes" In addition, the USFS requests a high flolllL for 20 days between May I and
<br />July 15 of at least 70% of bankfull and up to 120 % of bankfull (quantified as 7,0 cfs to
<br />12,0 cfs) to maintain habitat for greenback cutthroat trout. The Group wanted this
<br />definition (limits) of the high flow request and assurance that there would be some
<br />upstream exchange potential particularly during runoff,
<br />
<br />J 19A
<br />~ '
<br />Il)
<br />
<br />11') Iff
<br />8(,.,B-
<br />
<br />South Catamount Creek was ~ during 1975 near Green Mountain Falls, The CWCB
<br />flow recommendation was always present between mid-April and the end of July, and
<br />present more than 50% of the time in August. The Ci'lCIl winter flow was less than 2,0
<br />cfs, The low portion of the USFS high flow range (7,0 cfs) was met 0% of the time in
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />-,
<br />
|