Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Estimated Flows 0111 San Miguel River <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br />40 <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />J!! <br />() <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />- . <br /> <br />--.--- <br /> <br />Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul <br />Month <br /> <br />I <br />Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Table 2 shows that the summer flow recommendation of 10.5 cfs is available at least 50% of the <br />time from May 15th to October 31 st. The winter flow recommendatiion of 6.5 cfs is available at <br />least 50% of the time from November 1st to May 14th. I <br /> <br />Precipitation Data <br />Staff reviewed local precipitation data sets from two different sites located in and around the San <br />I <br />Miguel River drainage (see Precipitation Data in Appendix C). 1hese sites include Telluride <br />(1900-1999) and Ames (1914-1986). Table 3 shows the water year and the percent of average <br />precipitation recorded at each site. : <br /> <br /> <br />Tab e 3: PrecipitatIon Data as a percentage 0 Average. I <br />Water Year Telluride I Ames <br />1959 96% ! 88% <br /> I <br />1960 90% I 91 % <br />1961 127% I 109% <br />1962 85% ! 88% <br />1963 117% , 97% <br /> I <br />1964 117% I 81 % <br />I <br />1965 139% I 139% <br />Averae:e 110% I ~)9% <br /> <br />f <br /> <br />It is staffs opinion that the two years of stream-flow data analyzed is representative of average <br />or slightly above average water-years. : <br /> <br />- 5 - <br />