|
<br />000213
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />2. 65H
<br />
<br />South Fork Lake Creek
<br />QP at sec 3S - liS - 82W; 100 feet upstream of the private lands
<br />Amount: The existing CWCB flow recommendation for a base flow of 8,0 cfs year-
<br />round is acceptable and needed for fish purposes at the QP,
<br />
<br />There is no gage on the South Fork Lake Creek., _ I'l"f 11/ Dft~#-e> ~
<br />(f) "Up!>",-, ...?.;~ pl_R.,.,,/e"1 "~1""'1 ~
<br />. -1"4'/1') E~ N4>ff'J.12.. tfr't>T'f!....- I1"1,A... Qr'''''(J :> rr.eQvt..... ,
<br />651 North Fork Lake Creek .;;;~I-l. l3. -:1 (S 4-, t; f" r"",f
<br />" ' New QP at sec 22 - liS - 82W; 100 feet upstream of the Twin Lakes Tunnel f ,," ~esS
<br />Amount: A CWCB flow recommendation for 9,S cfs from October 16 to April IS, and
<br />12,0 cfs from April 16 to October IS, is acceptable and needed for fish purposes, This is
<br />different than the existing CWCB instream flow of 10 cfs that extends from the,
<br />headwaters to the confluence with the South Fork. CDOW revised the recommendation
<br />because the QP is considerably upstream ofthe South Fork confluence and inflows from
<br />Twin Lakes Tunnel transmountain diversion, In addition, the USFS requests a~
<br />for 20 days between May I and July IS of at least 70% of bankfull and up to 120 % of
<br />bankfull (quantified as 173,0 cfs to 294,0 cfs) to remove sands in the stream as a :e~ ~
<br />of sanding Independence Pass, to transport heavy sediment loads from Highway ~ and ~
<br />to maintain channel capacity, geometry and aquatic habitat in this meandering alluvial
<br />stream. The Group wanted this definition (limits) of the high flow request and assurance
<br />that there would be some upstream exchange potential particularly during runoff,
<br />
<br />'0
<br />'11~'-r
<br />. rD\J1 ~~)
<br />C~"\ I.~./T~
<br />rI \,1
<br />~vI ;u;:;j;
<br />I(~
<br />I ""~~ ~~)
<br />I ~ pi \\~'
<br />(J ~tI
<br />\,'1'
<br />
<br />t 67A
<br />
<br />/1, t~ZP
<br />p'l':l';IJ'''''-
<br />A-k> L
<br />~J 'j-I-..~"'-'
<br />';jP'
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />12 f\P
<br />
<br />The USFS operated several stream ~ in the Lake Creek Basin, The North Fork Lake
<br />Creek gage showed the following FOrWater years i969 to 1978, The 9,S cfs
<br />recommendation was seldom present during the winter period at the flume, The 12,0 cfs
<br />summer flow was present more than half the time, A high flow of 173 cfs was attainable
<br />in May, usually present in June, but only available for a few days one time in July,
<br />
<br />Low Pass Gulch
<br />QP at sec 28 - liS - 79W; 100 feet upstream ofthe west section line (forest boundary)
<br />Amount: The existing CWCB flow recommendation for a base flow of 2,0 cfs year-
<br />round is acceptabie and needed for fish purposes at the QP,
<br />t~M
<br />There is no """~ on Low Pass Gulch, I / iJ ..... _ s--
<br />'-y>p"rf'-A.Io.~~...p_tf"",'D. nt. '~.I.,,,,i~~c.r- '
<br />Clear Creek {!::-J/~;:d!~._p I S +'''-' .-'... .Iev...40~ ..r>I'...../........h
<br />QP at sec IS - 12S - 80W; 100 feet upstream of the most upstream forest boundary
<br />Amount: A CWCB flow recommendation for a base flow of IS,O cfs year-round is
<br />accepted and needed for fish purposes, In addition, the USFS requests a~or 20'
<br />days between May I and July IS of at least 70% of bankfull and up to 120 % of bankfull
<br />(quantified as 346,0 cfs to S94,0 cfs) to transport heavy sediment loads caused by natural
<br />erosion, and to maintain channel capacity, geometry, and aquatic habitat in this alluvial
<br />stream, The Group wanted this definition (limits) of the high flow request and assurance
<br />that there would be some upstream exchange potential particularly during runoff to
<br />accommodate existing and future development in the basin,
<br />
<br />II HF
<br />
<br />6
<br />
<br />! 1
<br />
|