• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Fall and Winter Baseflow
With the woody riparian growing season passed, baseflow allocation beginning October 1 and lastingthrough March 31 is focused on brown trout habitat. Recommended fall and winter baseflows for RushCreek in all runoff year types are 25 cfs to 29 cfs starting October 1 and ending March 31. Riffle crestthalweg depths were examined to determine that adult brown trout passage depths at riffle crests (riffle-pool connectivity) during spawning migration is adequate at these recommended baseflows (AppendixD). As documented during the Rush Creek Movement Study, brown trout spawning migration began mid-to late-October and ended mid-December (Taylor et al. 2009b). Consequently, fall-winter baseflowsduring spawning season through incubation of embryos should be stable.Fall and winter baseflow recommendations for brown trout in Rush Creek were developed from the IFSresults (Taylor et al. 2009a). Selection of mapping reaches emphasized Rush Creek below the Narrowsbecause this reach supported clusters of high-quality pools with suitable habitat for larger brown trout andalso has the greatest potential for additional channel evolution. Inclusion of the 10-Channel/Old LowerMainstem split provided the opportunity to evaluate trout habitat in the relic mainstem channel atmeasured streamflows less than the lowest test flow released (Figure 8 in Taylor et al. 2009a).The IFS report concluded that a winter baseflow (measured at the study reaches) from 19 cfs to 23 cfsprovided the most brown trout holding habitat downstream of the Narrows, whereas baseflows of approximately 30 cfs provided the most holding habitat in Upper Rush Creek (Table 6 and Figure 8 inTaylor et al. 2009a). To achieve 19 cfs to 23 cfs downstream of the Narrows, LADWP flow releases mustrange from 23 cfs to 27 cfs to account for streamflow losses and tributary accretions. Streamflow lossesand gains were initially measured in August of 2008 during the test-flow releases for the IFS habitatmapping (Table 5-3). Additional synoptic flow measurements were made during the winter of 2009-2010to more accurately assess losses and gains during the winter baseflow period (Appendix A). Thecombined Parker and Walker creeks’ accretions were approximately 5 cfs during both sets of synopticflow measurements (summer of 2008 and winter of 2009-2010). The 2009-2010 synoptic flowmeasurements between November and March documented net-losses similar to the August 2008measurements of approximately 9 cfs between the MGORD and the County Road section (Table 5-4).Although MGORD releases of 23-27 cfs provided close to 100% of the maximum mapped winter holdinghabitat in Rush Creek downstream of the Narrows, our recommended winter flow release for Rush Creek is 25-29 cfs which should still provide approximately 91 to 96 % of the maximum mapped habitat in the10-Channel, Bottomlands and County Road reaches of lower Rush Creek (Figure 8 in Taylor et al.2009a). There are several reasons for recommending a MGORD release of 25-29 cfs instead of 23-27 cfs.First, the synoptic flows measured during the winter of 2009-2010 confirmed that the reach betweenHighway 395 and Parker Creek is the largest losing reach (Appendix A). As with Lee Vining Creek, weare concerned that excessively low winter baseflows could potentially exacerbate icing conditions in thisrelatively open-canopied, moderately sloped reach that is dominated by high-gradient riffles and exposedboulders. These physical conditions promote the formation of ice in streams (Prowse 2001; Bradford andHeinonen 2008; NOAA 2009). Because measured flow losses between the MGORD and the Narrows aretypically higher than between the Narrows and County Road, a MGORD release of 23 cfs could translateinto a flow of about 17 cfs in Rush Creek above Parker Creek. Furthermore, in November of 2009, a 23cfs release could have translated into in a stream discharge of only 14-15 cfs in Rush Creek above Parker
 
Creek (Appendix A).Secondly, we remain cautious about reducing flows below 25 cfs within the MGORD because of theimportance of this channel reach to produce and sustain large trout, probably as a function of its lowgradient, higher productivity and more moderate winter thermal regime due to its proximity to GLR.Long-term fisheries sampling data (especially biomass and RSD metrics) suggest that the MGORD’sbrown trout population is still recovering from LADWP’s re-construction project in 2004. For example,our earliest sampling effort in 2001 produced the highest RSD-375 value that has been measured thus far(13; indicating that 13% of the brown trout longer than 150 mm were also longer than 375 mm or 15inches). Values for this metric have remained less than 5 since the 2004 re-construction. Future samplingof the MGORD’s trout community will be important to assess if the recommended SEF winter baseflowsaffect the relative densities of these larger fish in the MGORD.Finally, results from the Upper Rush Creek IFS mapping section, located between the MGORD andHighway 395, determined that the maximum amount of mapped holding habitat occurred at flows close to30 cfs and that these critical holding habitats were very scarce in this reach (Taylor et al. 2009a). Thisreach is currently utilized by large adult brown trout, originating both locally and from the MGORD, forspawning and winter holding habitat (Taylor et al. 2009b). Consequently, flows in the 25-29 cfs rangeshould provide a higher proportion of critically scarce adult brown trout holding habitats in this reach thanlower flows.Depending on runoff year type, variable monthly accretion from Parker and Walker creeks, combinedwith variable flow losses, will increase the range of winter baseflows below the Narrows. These projectedvariations in winter baseflow will not appreciably reduce or impact winter holding habitat availability forbrown trout in Rush Creek. In wet and extremely-wet runoff year types, we expect that increased Parkerand Walker creeks’ accretions to the MGORD release of 25-29 cfs would still provide approximately 87to 91% of the maximum mapped habitat in the 10-Channel, Bottomlands and County Road reaches of lower Rush Creek.The SEF winter baseflow releases should increase preferred brown trout winter holding habitat comparedto higher Order 98-05 winter baseflow requirements. Greater habitat availability will be most apparent inWet and Extremely-Wet runoff years, which have a required SRF baseflow release of 52 cfs. Additionalaccretion from Parker and Walker creeks, particularly in wetter years and under less pronouncedstreamflow losses, generates unfavorably high winter baseflows in those wetter years. For example,streamflows in RY2006 below the Narrows varied between 58 cfs and 94 cfs from October to December,exceeding 65 cfs for 63 days of this 92-day period.SEF hydrographs with recommended peak spills from GLR were simulated below the Narrows (withParker and Walker unimpaired flows) for RYs 1990 to 2008 (Figure 5-14).
 
Table 5-4.
Summary of Rush Creek synoptic flow measurements made in August of 2008 and during thewinter of 2009-2010.
August 20,2008August 21,2008November10, 2009January11, 2010February16, 2010March 16,2010
MGORDDischarge(cfs)33 17 31 34 34 33Parker andWalker(cfs)5 5 6 3 5 5Sub-total(cfs) 38 23 37 37 39 38Streamflowat Co. Rd.(cfs)29 14 28 30 30 30Net Loss(cfs)
9 9 9 7 9 8
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...