Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />000l~2 <br /> <br />NATIONAL FOREST RESERVED WATER RIGHT CLAIMS <br />COLORADO WATER DIVISION 2 <br />TECHNICAL WORKGROUP <br /> <br />GROUP 1 STREAM SUMMARY <br />November 29, 1996 <br /> <br />prepared by <br />D. Randolph Seaholm <br /> <br />Overview <br />The technical workgroup was given the task of providing flow recommendations <br />on Group I streams to the principle negotiators in the Colorado Water Division 2 <br />National Forest Reserved Water Rights Claim Case, Originally, this task consisted of <br />looking at 44 streams. Of these 44 streams, the claims on 3 were dropped altogether by <br />the USPS, Additionally, the recommendation is to relocate the QP on 7 streams, which <br />may result in two or three QP's higher up in the basin instead of one QP low down on the <br />stream that would command the entire watershed. As a result, there are now 45 QP's in <br />the Group I classification, Of these 45 QP's the CWCB holds instream flow decrees or <br />has proposed in stream flow recommendations on 25 streams and there are 20 streams on <br />which information is needed, The CWCB, CDOW and USPS implemented a workplan <br />for collecting data and developing flow recommendations on the 20 streams at the <br />proposed QP. The data collection efforts were split between the CWCB and CDOW staff <br />and the USFS staff. To date, the CWCB and CDOW staff, with assistance from Dave <br />Park of the USPS, has completed their data collection and done the data reduction <br />necessary to develop flow recommendations. The USPS has completed only a portion of <br />the data collection they agreed to do. That data has been provided to the CDOW and they <br />are currently doing the data reduction in cooperation with Dave Park of the USPS. It will <br />likely be early summer 1997 before the USPS can finish their data collection on the <br />remaining streams. To date, the workgroup has met 4 times and will need to meet at least <br />once more to review the proposed flow recommendations being developed and discuss <br />the high flow recommendations further. <br /> <br />In addition to the CWCB instream flows on the 45 Group I streams, the USPS is <br />also requesting the protection of higher flows between May I and July 15 of each year on <br />14 streams. They would like that protection to provide for at least 70 % of the bankfull <br />discharge and as much as 120 % ofthe bankfull discharge. The USPS agreed to provide <br />an explanation of their methodology and need for these flows but to date, the technical <br />workgroup has not received anything in writing, It has been explained that the primary <br />need for these higher flows was to help move sediment, much of which would come from <br />highway sanding, through the system, The other major reason given was to help protect <br />the habitat of the endangered Greenback Cutthroat Trout if present. I would also observe <br />that requests are for the most part on streams who's watersheds are a major recreational <br />resource in the area, The states primary concern and that of the water users as well, is <br />that there remains enough water above the QP to meet the needs of any development that <br /> <br />J!. - J <' ~ <br />