Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.I.i <br />II <br /> <br />,I <br />'I <br />.' <br />., <br />1 <br /> <br />'I <br /> <br />I I <br />II <br />" <br /> <br />Biologic Flow Recommendations <br />The CD OW recommended a 1.3 cfs summer and winter flow for the segment based on the <br />October st\ 1996, data collection efforts. <br /> <br />Staff reviewed the data collected by the CDOW. The summer flow recommendation for the <br />proposed reach, which meets 3 of 3 criteria but is outsid(: the accuracy range of the R2CROSS <br />model is 2.7 cfs. The winter flow recommendation for the proposed reach, which meets 2 of 3 <br />criteria and is within the accuracy range of the R2CROSS model is 1.3 cfs (See Table 1). It is our <br />belief that recommendations that fall outside of the accuracy range of the model, over 250% of <br />the measured discharge or under 40% of the measured discharge may not give an accurate <br />estimate of the necessary instream flow required. In these cases, CWCB staff relies upon the <br />biological expertise of the cooperating agencies to develop a biologic instream flow <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />The CD OW has indicated that this is a high priority stream segment to them. However, because <br />the summer recommendation falls outside the accuracy range of the R2CROSS model, staff <br />believes that more data needs to be collected to accurately predict the summer flow <br />recommendation. Staff has consulted with the recommending agency and believes that it would <br />be appropriate for the Board to file on a year-round flow of 1.3 cfs, if water was available (See <br />Table 1). <br /> <br />Hydrologic Data <br /> <br />After receiving the cooperating agency's biologic recommendation, the CWCB staff conducted <br />an evaluation of the stream hydrology to determine if water was physically available for an <br />instream flow appropriation. There are no currently operated or historically operated <br />streamflow gages for this reach. The closest gage CWCB staff found was the gage located on the <br />San Miguel River 5.0 miles west of Royer Gulch drainage. The hydro graph below was derived <br />from data collected by the USGS stream gage for the San Miguel River near Telluride, CO (ill <br />#09171200), which has a drainage area of 42.S square miles. The drainage area of Royer Gulch <br />is approximately 1.0 square miles. Staff used a basin apportionment method to estimate stream <br />flows for Royer Gulch (See Gage Summary in Appendix C). The period of record for this gage <br />was 1959 to 1965, the period of record used by staff in their analysis was 1959 - 1965, or six <br />years of record. Table 2 below displays the estimated flow of Royer Gulch above the San <br />Miguel River, in terms of a percentage of exceedence. <br /> <br />Table 2: <br /> <br />Estimated Royer Gulch Stream Flow <br />Exceedences <br />1% <br />5% <br />10% <br />20% <br />50% <br />80% <br />90% <br />95% <br />99% <br /> <br />Januarv Februarv March ADril Mav June Julv AU<lust Seotember October November December <br />0.43 0.48 1.20 2.48 9.61 11.13 9.90 4.88 2.20 1.15 0.79 0.55 <br />0.40 0.45 0.73 2.14 8.29 9.86 8.51 2.87 1.73 0.94 0.69 0.48 <br />0.38 0.45 0.56 1.85 5.67 8.55 6.38 2.24 1.54 0.90 0.67 0.45 <br />0.38 0.43 0.48 1.45 4.39 7.36 4.78 1.81 1.33 0.78 0.62 0.43 <br />0.36 0.36 0.38 0.83 2.83 5.51 2.30 1.21 0.88 0.64 0.52 0.40 <br />0.33 0.33 0.33 0.52 1.66 3.14 1.31 0.93 0.64 0.55 0.48 0.38 <br />0.31 0.33 0.33 0.38 1.04 2.76 1.06 0.78 0.62 0.52 0.45 0.38 <br />0.31 0.33 0.33 0.38 0.86 2.38 0.96 0.69 0.59 0.52 0.45 0.31 <br />0.31 0.33 0.29 0.38 0.69 1.91 0.78 0.64 0.57 0.50 0.43 0.31 <br />