BOARD02307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 311 Dan Merriman, Chief Water Rights Investigation section December 13, 2000 Page 2 has been operated, there have only been seven days when the flow in Bear Creek during the period April 15 through October 15 was not at least 10.0 cubic feet per second. Six of those days occurred in April of 1991. There were no instances when the flow of Bear Creek during the period October 16 through April 14 was not at least 5,0 cubic feet per second. A memorandum summarizing the Blatchley analysis is enclosed. Rule 9.03 of the "Rules concerning the Colorado Instream Flow and Natural Lake Level Program" authorizes the staff to defer filing a statement of opposition in Water Court cases where the depletive effect on a stream segment is less than one percent of the CWCB's instream flow right. The staff of Blatchley Associates has completed a study of the cumulative effect of all plan for augmentation applications in the Bear Creek drainage basin for which the ewCB staff has given de minimis status. The impacts associated with the Randolph Capital development were included in the analysis. A copy of a memorandum summarizing the analysis is also enclosed. As can be seen, depending upon the stream segment and the time of year, only between two percent and twenty percent of the exempt depletive effect allowed under Rule 9.03 has been used. Therefore, even if the proposed instream flows on Bear Creek and Troublesome Creek would regularly be impacted by the Randolph Capital plan for augmentation, the effect is so small as to not be recognizable. In the event that you or other staff members have questions or desire to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to call. It is my understanding that the request to withdraw the CWCB's statement of Opposition can be included as an agenda item for the January, 2001 meeting of the Board. enclosures CCl Randolph Capital Corporation Blatchley Associates, Inc. Edward R. Kowalski, Esq. Susan J. Schneider, Esq.