BOARD00054

• Board Meeting Date: 1/12/1998
• Description: ISF Section - Acceptance of Injury with Mitigation
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

e

e

-

FROM'

TO

303 866 4474

1998.01-20

18:01 11725 P.04/04

Letter - Dan Merriman
18 January 1998

The woISt case scenario is that if the pipeline is damaged when the flow at the Bridal Veil diversion is 1 cfs
or less, Bridal Veil Creek would be completely dewatered. The streamflow at the top of the CWCB's San
Miguel River instream flow reach would rely solely upon the flow of Ingram Creek. The San Miguel would
gain streamflow ftom several other small tn'butaries (l'vWsball Creek, Deertta.il Gulch, Royer Gulch, and Owl
Glllch) that enter the river within 8000 feet of the conf1uence of Ingram and Bridal Veil Creeks. The specific
mitigation issue in this case is, "Are the impacts associated with a junior lcfs diversion under ~t should
be a very rare set of circumstances offset by the benefit of utilizing existing storage facilities and having the
Bear Creek watershed and its high quality water protected from diversion in perpetuity?"

RECOMMENDATIONS

The above analysis of the town's proposal shows that there is a clear and definite benefit from the use of the
ldarado water rights to supply water to the growing community of Telluride. By using the water stored in Blue
Lake, flows in the San Miguel River will remain stable in the future. The perpetual protection of the Bear
Creek watershed is critical to the =eni.mon efforts at the ldarado Mine and Mill site; the high quality water
is needed for dilution of the heavy metal CQDt>lminArion that comes from the ldarado property, In addition to
the water quality benefits, the instream flow values of Bear Creek will also be protected from the diversions
that could have occumd if the 'Bear Creek water rights would have been developed at their original point of
diversion. Recall that these water rights are senior in priority to the Board's Bear Creek instream flow water
right. Even in the weISt case scenario, it is my belief that the San Miguel basin as a whole will be bener off
if the Board enters into this agreement with the Town of Telluride.

It is therefore the opinion of the Division of Wildlife that, based on the information provided by the Town of
Telluride, this proposal for "lIYury with Mitigation" as defined and provided for in Rule 9.43 of the Rules and
Regulations Concerning the Colorado lnszream Flow and Natural Lake Levell'rogram, is appropriate and
will provide for adequate protection of the na%lIral. environment in both the San Miguel River and Bear Creek.
I have consulted v.ith the Division's Wamr Quality Protection Specialist, Dr. John Woodling and he concurs
in this opinion. Dr. Woodling was one of the state's experts in the ldarado CERCLA case and therefore is
very familiar with both the fishery values and the water quality issues of the San Miguel River basin.

I will be available at the January, 1998 eWCB meeting when this item is brought before the Board for their
consideration and will be more than happy to answer any questions that they may have at that time. Please
feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.

~-
~

Flow Program Coordinator

cc:

Jennifer Gimbel, AAG
John Woodling, PhD.
David Langlois

..