ISFAPPC01669

• Case Number: 02CW0267
• Stream Name: Eider Creek
• Watershed: San Miguel River
• Water Division: 4
• Water District: 60
• County: San Miguel
• Instream Flow App - Doc Type: Supplemental Data

I'nl Illy ~t'1'11'.1: 111 rri '.Ilr'.I I11 ~~i i• ~L~,I ,i ~~'I '.t n t~~ n'a 6_r UI'li "~:' I. tf~ ~!ll r'.vII III IJill~.' I Ik'II?vl
I.IhI~• I show. wllu ~ullr.lyd the alacl Il',ut~'r. Ilu' al.lll Itlc slate '~t.r .ullr.trll il).d~ l Ills
• ~nr^sured dix•harge at the time of Ihr sun'ey 1(1). the accuracy range of the prultcted Iluws
based on Manning Equation l'_4(1'i', and 4U4h of Q), the summer t1ow rcconuncnJ:dion based un
nlreting 3 0l' 3 hydraulic criteria and the winter flow recommendation based u[xm _' of 3
hodruulic criteria
gable I L):d:1
- -~ -
~Purh Dutr ~ 2~11^,7c-411% ~ tiununcr 1 ~/31 ~ 11'intl•r tJ3)
1~N'ICWC[3 ~ lU/ns/t)(,-} ~.tl7 Z -" --. _
~_..--
nLM Bur,:ru ul Lind \Iarsq.uiN m I n IN - flea r.6nr u1 N ddhk CW('If = < elur.rJu NOItt l unKlvuuun Hawnl
I I I I'nHl. ceJ ILrw out •ul; ~d G., n;w,a v r my~.r ..I \f7mm~g'. 6luunm ' = C'ntrn0 otter urel w IVCR<155 5ugmg labk.
tiiuhi,;ic I•lllw Rcconurtend:uions
1'hc C[)OW rcconuncncfcd a S?5 cfs summer flow and :1 I.0 cfs winter flow based un the
(ktot,er K'". 191)6, data collection efforts.
Staff revicwcJ the tL•du cotta cd by the CUO1ti'. The sunnncr Ilrnv rcconuncndauun, which
meets 3 al' 3 criteria and i. within the accuracy range of the R'CROSS model is 5._75 cis. 'fhe
winter flow reconunend:nion which meets 2 u(3 criteria falls outside of the accuracy rutgc of
the R2('ROSS model is l.O cf, tSec Tahlc 1 ). It is our Ixlicf that recommendation. that Cull
outside of the accuracy range uF the nxldcl. over '_5O`/, of the measured disrh:vgr ur under aO`i~
ref the measured discharge rtwy not give an accurate estimate of the necessary instrcam Ilow
required. In these cases. CWCE3 Gaff relics upon the biological expertise of the ccx3pcraung
• a~a•ncics to develop a htologic mstnam flow recommendation.
I.I determine the winter flow recommendation, staff considered the proposed winter
Irrumntcndation for F.,idar Creek of I.0 cfs. After consulting with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife. staff believes I.0 cfs will be sufficient to protect. the natural environment to a
rcasonahle degree. (Sec Table I ).
Hydrologic Data
:\Itcr Ic.riun,l Ihr ~:oupcr:uing aernc}'. hlallogic recommendation, the CWC[3 staff conducted
an ccaluarlon of the .cream hydrnhr~}' tar determine it water was physically available for an
mstrc;un flow appropriation. There arc no currently upcrucd or historically upcr:ded
sucamtlaw gages tilt this reach. The closest gage C~1'('li staff tinlnd was the gage. located un the
San Aligucl Rrvcr IA miles west of the F:idcr Crock drainage. The hydrogruph below was
dcnved from dada collected by the USGS stream gage for the San b1iguel Ricer near Telluride.
('O I II) itlK)1712(N)1, which h:>c :t drainage area of 4'?.R square mlle< (sec below). 'lire drunage
taco of Eider ('reek is approxmratcly 2.5 square miles. Stall used a basin apportiunnunt nlethlxl
to estimate stream (lows lur Eider Creek ISee Gage Sununary in Appendix CI. "lire period of
record For this gage was 1959 to 1965, the period of record used by stufF in their analysis was
1959 - 1965. ur six vcan of record. 'Table Z below displays the estimated flow n( Eider Creek, in
terms of a percentage of excccdcncc.
ra,,.~r r ei i r.~ _~I r,c r h.1 r Ir ~~.i a, n -. i n~ner
_
114-~ ]
L-7_07 00 t"Y 2i 63 N78
a701 12 a1 .', ~
~ i01 ~ 110 1 1.J1'
I
113 '
I
• ~ IA7 Oa-~ -S,1 M. 7a 2{01 2120 717 I
~7] ~
- ].M 177 1tC
.
17 ~ 1 94
1 067 N t0 21 Ja 1590 7.54 t
1M 2Z0 100 1 N
~
1 t
19 107 ~0 97 -`
10 Il 1143 {
O7 a.]7 1.10 _
1 S{ 1.02
107 1.
~ I
I 2 Oe i a>' u.7e 11~ , c
I .
7.07 _
3
72 a.20
60 I
1 t.w
L77 -
1 ~1 _
110 1
~.i :u
-~ .. a. -u
r~ ~
~ 131 ~ {.
3. 16
50 7.BJ,
777
609 266 _ .
LW .
L60 IF
t.11 .
117
_
T7 OEU O
~ 0 i
PT ~
t{ 54n I79 I 1.7a 1.06 1.71 ttl~
.
• • 0 77 O IO 0. 7 ~ 1. 72 1.74 ~ 1 M I 1 AO 1 .t'r 1 7f 1 07 I