Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C"CM I~G"wCD <br /> <br />.=-=->< NC. <br /> <br />~70 ';.J~ <-.- . <br /> <br />~~~. _~ ~CC0 04:~~F~ P8 <br /> <br />Goes ::et establis~ ;lny instr-eam news :1or does it requi!"~ rhe rele:J.Se of Taylor <br />Par:, Si.orace fer i~stre;lm Durnoses i:: the a:1:cu:lts dec1"eed. The CWCB <br />. ~ . , <br />initiaily ohit:c~ed to the applications fer the ve~..' ?uryose or n..ssuring no <br />instre:},r:!.l flow rig...t-t!s were being pro~osec. <br /> <br />T:J.e optimum flow r3!icreS ident:ii:ed i:l p~3.gr:!.pl1 22 or the 86C\V203 decree <br />establish UDPer limii:S or.. the arr:.cunt of ware: t.l::a: C:.1n be ide:1uf:ed as storage <br />beneficially. used for the decreed fishery and recreational purposes. Tne <br />decree accounting does not allow Taylor Park storage releases in excess of <br />these amounts to be considered as beneficially used for decreed purposes. <br /> <br />If the sole objective of Taybr Park releases was to maintain the highest flows <br />identified in paragraph 22 year round inunediately beiow Taylor Park Dam <br />as asserted by Mr. J\;1iller it would require 246,053 ai annually. This is not the <br />intent. The Taylor River basin above Taylor Park Reservoir does not produce <br />this much water naturally in most years. Furthermore, it would not be <br />possible with a 2nd fill decree for only 106,230 af to e.'Cercise control over the <br />volume of water required to fully satisfy this need. As with any reservoir <br />operation, meetings are held during each year among interested parties to <br />review the inflow forecast and anticipated needs to arrive at the best <br />operation for the next few months. The optimum flow ranges in paragraph <br />22 are not e.'Cpected to be achieved each and every month nor each and every <br />year. <br /> <br />The testimony of Mr. Nehring, Colorado Division of Wildlife, in 86CW203 <br />identifies the optimum flow studies he did as representative of Taylor River <br />conditions from Taylor Park Dam to Almon!, and definitely representative of <br />stream conditions from the confluence of Spring Creek to Almont. This <br />suggests to us that the more appropriate monitoring point might be at the <br />Almom gage. Mr. Nehring's testimony was very clear that more stable flows <br />were a major reason for better trout production along with reduced peaks and <br />higher wimer flows. Most of Mr. Miller's conclusions regarding fisheries do <br />not appear to be supported by the data presented by Mr. Nehring. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller asserted that t!:e Upper Gunnison District and supporters of <br />86CW203 were utilizing erroneous hydrologic data. The water court ruled in <br />86CW203 that it was the Union Park proponents, not the Upper Gunnison <br />District and supporters of the 86CW203 case, who were asserting erroneous <br />hydrologic data and assumptions. <br /> <br />Tne study Mr. Miller refers to at the bottom of page 1 of his August 2, letter <br />was the study performed by the Colorado Water Resources and Power <br />Development Authority in 1989. Tne prefeasibility study objective, "was to <br />identify and evaluate water resource management plans to enhance the water- <br /> <br />5 <br />