BOARD00312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The following table provides a summary of the recommendations that were previously presented in January of 2005, as well as the proposed modifications that were made as a result of the water availability study. . Stream Orie:inal Recommendation Modified Recommendation Muddy Creek 56 (03/15-07/14) 56 cfs (04/01 - 06/30) (tributary to Paonia Reservoir) 25 (07/15-11/14) 17cfs (07/01 - 03/31) 19 (11/15 -03/14) Anthracite Creek 54 (04/01 - 07/14) 39 (07/15 - 08/14) No Change 17 (08/15 - 03/31) Coal Creek 21 (02/15 - 03/31) 39 (04/01 - 07/14) No Change 21 (07/15 - 11/14) 18 (11/15 - 02/14) Williams Creek 0.25 (01/01- 12/31) Recommendation dropped * Muddy Creek 3.8 (05/01 - 08/14) Recommendation dropped due to (tributary to Crawford Reservoir) 0.5 (08/15 - 04/30) water availability Smith Fork Gunnison River 7.7 (03/01- 03/31) ~ 12.9 (04/01 - 07/31) :::s.tteam segment shortened and lower 7.7 (08/01 - 11/14) i( 6.5 (11/15 - 02/29) terminus moved upstream to the Saddle Mountain Ditch South Fork Smith Fork 4.1 (03/15 - 04/14) v]"'- "- Gunnison River 6.4 (04/15 - 07/31) - 3 (08/01 - 11/14) No Change 2.4 01115 - 03/14) * While the model does not indicate water availability problems on Williams Creek, further analysis indicates otherwise. Specifically, based on site visits and conversations with the water commissioner and landowner, the recommended year round instream flow of 0.25 cfs does not appear to exist at least 50% of the time. . Public Comment Staff has received a letter from Dixie Luke and Joe Sperry representing the Ragged Mountain Water Users Association (attached). The letter asserts that 1) the biological data is insufficient 2) the water availability study is inadequate with erroneous assumptions (this references the study discussed above which was sponsored and paid for by the Board and CRWD in order to help address the concerns of the North Fork constituency regarding future development), and 3) that staff and the Board have not been responsive to community input. During the last six months, staffhas worked with the Colorado River Water Conservancy District, Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers, CDM, the State and Division Engineers' Office, the Gunnison county planner and numerous land owners and other constituents to quantify water availability for both the North Fork basin stakeholders as well as for staffs analysis of water availability in relation to the proposed ISF rights. Furthermore, staff has attended numerous meetings in Hotchkiss and Delta to try and understand and address stakeholder concerns, and to make any possible concessions while still allowing for the preservation of the natural environment that was identified. In addition, staff has reviewed and is confident that the biological data provided by the Division of Wildlife clearly supports the existence of a natural . environment.