Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM 1c <br />SPECIAL BOARD MEETING <br />December 13, 1995 <br />ATIACHMENT 1 <br />KEY DECISION ISSUES <br />COLORADO RIVER 15-MILE REACH <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Base Flow Amounts: <br />Are the amounts acceptable? Staff does not recommend changing any of the 15-Mile <br />Reach base flows. The amounts in the final notice are acceptable for filing purposes <br />given that they could be adjusted downward as the carve out is distributed. <br />Staff was asked to review whether or not there was a practical difference between <br />810 and 581 cfs during August, and September. Staff observes that 581 cfs can be <br />maintained in the 15-Mile reach as long as the Cameo call is afull2260 cfs. 1n order to <br />maintain more than 581, changes to existing operations under the Cameo call must <br />occur or the flows augmented. Grand Valley Water Management and Coordinated <br />Reservoir Operations could supply additional water which would be reason to remain <br />with the Service's 810 recommendation. However, based on hydrology usedfor the <br />92CW286 case, flows would be 581 or less 27% of the time during August and 46% of <br />the time during September. If these values were increased to 810, .. one could expect <br />flows of this value or less approximately 45% of the time during August, and <br />approximately 69% of the time during September. Given the above, staff believes there <br />is a practical difference and recommends staying with the base flows as published in the <br />Final Notice. <br />Oct. Nov. D<<. JtlIL F.b. Mar. Apr. May JIIJl. Jul. Jtd. Aug. &p. <br />I-IS 16-31 <br /> <br />FWS <br />Bas. 810 1.240 1.240 1.240 1.240 1.240 1.860 7.260 6.850 1,480 1.480 810 810 . . <br />Flow Fi Ie. ........ <br />Fuud 581 1,240 1.240 1.240 1.240 1.240 l,OOO 2,000 2.000 1.000 800 581 581 ~'OJ-s ~ <br />Notice ) <br /> <;;'0 rt. O...Ll- <br />Stoff 581 1.240 1.240 1.240 1.240 1.240 1.000 2.000 2.000 1.000 800 581 581 rft> I.l 0>-- ---- <br />Rec. <br />qzC;"",ZaoI&> - ~ . .... c:> D to . 0 ~I S<rJ 531 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Recovery Flow Amounts: <br />Should the Recovery Flow be a numeric value as described in the Final Notice or <br />for the flows remaining after the Carve Out is in fuD use? This is the most <br />controversial part of the application; staff recommends that the Board adopt the later <br />approach which has been described in various forms (e.g. "the stream flow remaining <br />after humans have totally consumed the Carve Out" or "Flows remaining after the <br />Carve Out is fully developed"). 1f the Board c/woses numeric values. terms and <br />conditions which reflect afrequency of enforcement consistent with the Service's <br />recommendations will need to be developed. ~ ( <br />How should administration be accomplished? Staff recommends that this be, . <br />negotiated during water court proceedings. ~f!i <br />Do not call for right if such could cause flooding. Staff recommends that thiS~ I (I <br />condition be negotiated during water court proceedings. The Service would like to ee <br />some flooded bottom lands. but, the Board staff is concerned that such action not re ult . <br />in any property damage. <br /> <br />1 <br />