My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ISFAPPC01496
CWCB
>
Instream Flow Appropriations
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
ISFAPPC01496
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2017 2:25:31 PM
Creation date
8/2/2007 1:17:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Instream Flow Appropriations
Case Number
02CW0276
Stream Name
Royer Gulch
Watershed
San Miguel River
Water Division
4
Water District
60
County
San Miguel
Instream Flow App - Doc Type
Supplemental Data
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 />STATE OF COLORADO <br />Bill Owens, Governor <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br /> <br />DIVISION OF WilDLIFE <br /> <br />AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER <br /> <br />Russell George, Director <br />6060 Broadway <br />Denver, Colorado 80216 <br />Telephone: (303) 297-1192 <br /> <br /> <br />1 o December 2001 <br /> <br />Mr. Dan Merriman <br />Mr. Mark Uppendahl <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Stream and Lake Protection Section <br />1313 Sherman Street, Suite 721 <br />I Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />Subj: CDOW Instream Flow Recommendations for Royer Gulch <br /> <br />Dear Dan and Mark: <br /> <br />The purpose of this letter is to officially transmit the Colorado Division of Wildlife's instream flow recommendations for Royer <br />Gulch in San Miguel County. The reach of stream covered by this flow recommendation is from the headwaters to the confluence <br />!: with the San Miguel River, a distance of approximately 1.5 miles. <br /> <br />'i In 1996, a group of water users in the San Miguel basin convened a series of facilitated meetings to discuss a number of water <br />resource related issues that the group collectively was facing. This group identified itself as the San Miguel Basin Stakeholders <br />. " Group. One of the initiatives that emerged from these meetings was a collective desire to have instream flows quantified for the <br />tributary streams of the San Miguel River not currently protected with a CWCB instream flow water right. Both the CWCB and <br />the CDOW participated in these meetings. Ken Torp, the facilitator for the stakeholders group, sent a letter to the CWCB in 1996 <br />requesting the CWCB to initiate instream flow quantification on the tributary streams. About that same time in history, another <br />group was forming; this group eventually became the San Miguel Watershed Coalition. The watershed coalition held a series of <br />I community meetings in the basin where agencies and members of the public identified issues that were facing the basin as a whole. <br />For each issue, wherever possible, goals, objectives, and strategies were developed to deal specifically with the issues. The <br />watershed coalition eventually produced a report, The San Miguel Watershed Plan. The watershed plan identified instream flow <br />protection for the San Miguel River and its tributaries as a high priority issue. Like the stakeholders group, the CWCB and the <br />CDOW were both heavily involved in all of the meetings. <br /> <br />1 As a direct result of these two independent events, the San Miguel River and its tributaries became high priority areas for instream <br />. flow protection for both the CD OW and the Bureau of Land Management. BLM was heavily involved in the watershed coalition <br />, effort. Starting in 1996, BLM, CWCB, and the CD OW initiated a comprehensive effort of quantifying instream flows in the San <br />Miguel River basin. The field effort alone for this task took several years. Due to the number of potential stream segments, the <br />, number of concerned groups involved, and the overall complexity of the water resource issues in the San Miguel basin, it has take <br />us nearly five years to complete the task. During this time period, we have spent a considerable amount of effort meeting with <br />" concerned groups, communities, water users, county commissioners, and the general public in an effort to gain a fair amount of <br />comfort and support for the instream flow recommendations. These flow recommendations are a culmination of a five year effort <br />involving many agencies of the federal, state, and local governments. <br /> <br />'~ In the fall of 1996, CDOW, with the assistance of the CWCB staff, collected stream cross section information, natural environment <br />data, and other data needed to quantify instream flow needs for Royer Gulch. The stream cross section data was analyzed using <br />the R2CROSS program. The R2CROSS output was examined using the methods described in Nehring (1979) and Espegren <br />(1996). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Natural Environment Studies: When Royer Gulch was sampled for the presence offish, no fish were collected; this is not to be <br />interpreted in such a manner to say that Royer Gulch is incapable of supporting fish. Royer Gulch supports a wide variety of <br /> <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcher, Executive Director <br />WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Rick Enstrom, Chair. Robert Shoemaker, Vice-Chair. Marianna Raftopoulos, Secretary <br />Members, Bemard Black. Tom Burke. Philip James. Brad Phelps . Olive Valdez <br />Ex-Officio Members, Greg E. Walcher and Don Ament <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.