My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07999
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:29:43 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:43:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8062.200
Description
Federal Reserved Water Rights - USFS - Water Division 2 - Negotiating Principles and Settlement
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
8/21/1996
Author
Unknown
Title
Technical Workgroup - Stream Survey - August 21 1996
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Data
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />1)'06172 <br /> <br />NATIONAL FOREST RESERVED WATER RIGHT CLAIMS <br />COLORADO WATER DIVISION 2 <br />TECHNICAL WORKGROUP <br />STREAM SURVEY <br /> <br />SURVEY DATE: AUl!ust 21.1996 <br />STREAM NAME: Clear Creek <br /> <br />STREAM NO: 67D <br /> <br />HYDROLOGY: <br />Drainage Area at Gaging Station: 67.1 sq. mi. <br />Stream Gaging Stations: Clear Creek above Clear Creek Reservoir <br />Average Flows: Period of Record: 1947-75 <br />oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep Total <br />cfs 29.7 19.5 14A IJ.8 IJ.3 IJ.3 18.8 114 299 179 70A 41.8 68.6 <br />AF 4~665 <br /> <br />NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: <br />Special Wildlife\Fish Habitat: <br />Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species if any: <br />Special Considerations: <br /> <br />QUESTIONS: <br />Would CWCB instream flows meet USFS needs? If not, why not?: <br />Yes, CWCB 15 cfs year round instreamflow will meet USFS needs. However, USFS also <br />wants a flushing flow (70%-120% of Bankfull) for some specified period between May 15 <br />and July 15 each year to maintain the structure of native aquatic habitat and move <br />added sediment from gravel road that runs adjacent to the stream. Several snowslide <br />areas also contribute to the sediment problem. <br /> <br />If water is developed from stream, what protections does the USFS know would have to <br />be provided? None Identified. <br /> <br />Is potential development compatible with USFS needs? If not, why not? <br />Existing development is compatible. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />(Le. can QP's be moved, CWCB instream flows acceptable, etc.) <br />Leave QP at point identified above. Use the CWCB 15 cfs year round instreamflow to <br />quantify USFS instreamflow baseflow claim. Have USFS define (general hydrographs) <br />what the flushing flow amount should be and the time during which they want it <br />protected. Make sure there is some upstream exchange potential to accommodate <br />existing wells and future water development that may occur on existing inholdings <br /> <br />ATTACHMENTS: List of attendees at the August 21,1996 meeting and stream maps and lists <br />of water rights in area provided by the SEO. <br /> <br />RANDYlC:\MSOFFICEIWINWORD\D2FSRWR.FOR <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />J.~. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.