BOARD00443

• Board Meeting Date: 7/23/2001
• Description: ISF Section - New Recommendations in Division 4: Garfield, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mesa, Montrose and San Miguel Counties
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

e

, ,.,'

';'.:;i:.~.r:
."/3'.

, ..,:.','
.:",

,.,~)~~~~"

ADDENDUM # 1
LOW FLOW ANALYSIS REPORT
PROPOSED NWC SAN MIGUEL DIVERSION
(Originally Issued December 2000)

January 200 1

The purpose of Addendum #1 is to revise a portion of the Low Flow Analysis Report, December
2000, to Nflcct review C01l'.ments received from the Bureau of Land Management. Comments
were received from BLM Hydrologist, Dennis Murphy, ,oia telephone on January 19, 2001.

Mr. Murpl1y's comments conc.emed report section 3.4 - Potential In-Stream Fiow Rights Impacts,
and the related Figure 3.3. Mr. Murphy correctly pointed out that the proposed in-stream rights
would not be additive to the senior rights flow during the p<!riod of river call (April 15 to October
I), but would be within the senior rights /low. This is true as thf. proposed ill-Stream /low rig!1t
during this period is less than the senior rights, and the diversion points for tlle majority of the
senior rights are downstream from the proposed l't i,VC diversion point at Be$ver Creek.

In ~ddition. eWCB has pe.rlbnned a preliminary review of the CDOW/ELM flow
recommendations (CWeB Memoralldum of November 16, :WOO). The eWeB review suggests
an in-stream /low of87 efs (4/1S - 10/31) alld 65 cfs (1l!1 .4/14) may be more appropriate. As
t!l.e CWCB winter flows are 5 cfs higher than the CDOW/BLM recommendations, Section 3.4 has
been revised to reflect CWCB flows as well as CDOWIBLM flows.

In ~um!Ilar'/, revised Sect!on3.4 now indicates that there may be a longer floW availability period
during the summer months, and a shoner floW availability period during the ,vinter than indicated
in the original Section 3.4.

Revised section Section 3.4, page 3-9 oftl1e report, and Figure 3.3 are attached.

.