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 />000176 <br /> <br />NATIONAL FOREST RESERVED WATER RIGHT CLAIMS <br />COLORADO WATER DIVISION 2 <br />TECHNICAL WORKGROUP <br />STREAM SURVEY <br /> <br />SURVEY DATE: AU/lUst 21. 1996 <br />STREAM NAME: Cottonwood Creek <br /> <br />STREAM NO: 71B <br /> <br />HYDROLOGY: <br />Drainage Area at Gaging Station: 65 sq. mi. <br />Stream Gaging Stations: Cottonwood Creek Below Hot Springs, nr Buena Vista, Co. <br />jus/ below confluence of Middle and South Cottonwood Cks. <br />Period of Record: 1912-75 <br />dec jan feb mar apr may jun juI aug sep Mean <br />26.0 no 21.1 19.9 22.9 75.9 198 118 64.3 45.1 56.9 <br />41,195 <br /> <br />Average Flows: <br />oct nov <br />37.6 30.0 <br /> <br />cfs <br />AF <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, eWCB 10 cfs year round instreamflows will meet USFS needs on both streams. <br />However, USFS also wants flushing flows (70%-120% of Bankfull) on both streams for <br />some specified period between May 15 and July 15 each year to maintain native aquatic <br />habitat and move sediments. <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 /> <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />(i.e. can QP's be moved, CWCB instream flows acceptable, etc.) <br />Delete current QP and establish new QP' s on both Middle and South Cottonwood <br />Creeks as described above. Use the CWCB 10 cfs year round instreamflows on each <br />stream to quantify the USFS instreamflow baseflow claims. Have USFS define (general <br />hydrographs) what the flushing flow amounts should be and the time during which they <br />want it protected. Limited upstream exchange potential is required with the new QP <br />locations. <br /> <br />ATTACHMENTS: List of attendees at the August 21, 1996 meeting and stream maps and lists <br />of water rights in the area provided by the SEO. <br /> <br />RANDYlC:\MSOFFICE\ WINWORDlD2FSRWR.FOR <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />I <br />" I <br />J~,I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.