# Dolores flows!



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Wow! That's great!


----------



## Dusto5 (Oct 20, 2013)

Outstanding news&#55357;&#56832;


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Does anyone know, will this primarily affect the lower stretch from the confluence down or does the historical flow regime mean the more popular upriver sections of the Dolores will see the most management change?

Phillip


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

The instream flows will be from McPhee Reservoir, so it'll affect the river all the way down. This includes the classic Dolores runs.

Hooray for AW!


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

Andy H. said:


> The instream flows will be from McPhee Reservoir, so it'll affect the river all the way down. This includes the classic Dolores runs.
> 
> Hooray for AW!


From reading the article it sounds like the target flow will be from the San Miguel confluence down to gateway of 900cfs. So if the San Miguel is running at 900cfs during whatever spring period they designate for flows. Then would I be correct in assuming that there would be no release from McPhee? Or if the San Miguel wasn't running during the designated dates then they would release water out of McPhee so the target flow would be 900cfs. Can anybody clarify this?


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Riverwild said:


> From reading the article it sounds like the target flow will be from the San Miguel confluence down to gateway of 900cfs. So if the San Miguel is running at 900cfs during whatever spring period they designate for flows. Then would I be correct in assuming that there would be no release from McPhee? Or if the San Miguel wasn't running during the designated dates then they would release water out of McPhee so the target flow would be 900cfs. Can anybody clarify this?


^This was what I was getting at. The language in the announcement seems to focus on the confluence not the upper stretch. Curious how that plays out historically as I haven't spent much time looking the flow data. Does the San Miguel normally release 900 cfs within the designated timeframe? If not, will the supplemental flow out of McPhee be enough for recreation?

The one thing that seems clear is the ecological picture is likely going to be much healthier.

Phillip


----------



## steven (Apr 2, 2004)

miguel is routinely over 900 during runoff. probably for over a month this past season.


----------



## steven (Apr 2, 2004)

this is good news, but will not get flows on mcphee-bedrock up to a runnable level, unless they designate a long window and the miguel has a very low water year. With the miguel's normal flows during peak, it will not take much more water from mcphee to get the river up to 900 below the confluence. I guess we need to wait and see what that flow window will be. 
Great job all involved!


----------



## efranz (May 12, 2009)

The specifics of the instream flow water right will be as follows: 

Reach: Confluence of the San Miguel River to the Town of Gateway (33 river miles)

Habitat Protected For: Flannelmouth Sucker, Bluehead Sucker, Roundtail Chub (BLM has signed a range-wide conservation agreement for these species) and Multiple Native Riparian Species

Flow Rates: 

900 cfs - April 15 to June 14
400 cfs - June 15 to July 15
200 cfs - July 16 to August 14
100 cfs - August 15 to March 15
200 cfs - March 16 to April 14

The Colorado Water Conservation Board instructed the attorney general to file the water right applications by the end of the calendar year. Through yet another partnership with Gateway Canyon Resort, BLM secured approval for USGS to install a stream flow gage on one of resort's bridges over the Dolores River. That gage will be used to enforce the instream flow water right.


----------



## steven (Apr 2, 2004)

my guess:

we may see enough to float above bedrock from 4/15 through end of april. It will be nice to (maybe) be able to count on running mcphee down the last 2 weeks of april each year.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Fingers crossed but have learned not to hold my breathe.

The last time I ran Ponderosa down we hit Snaggletooth at around 900 cfs and dropping. That was one bony SOB. Fun entry but some serious maneuvering right afterwards.

I would love to see that stretch again. What a stunning place. It holds my favorite campsite out of any of the western rivers I have done. I could sit at that place for weeks and be happy.

Phillip


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

Anyone know what the minimum flow down from McPhee would be in an IK?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Riverwild said:


> Anyone know what the minimum flow down from McPhee would be in an IK?


That's a very vague question. Are you referring to Ponderosa Gorge, Slickrock, or Gateway? You could probably float most of Slickrock with a couple hundred in an IK...

I too am stoked about the prospect of late April water coming out of McPhee.


----------



## Riverwild (Jun 19, 2015)

lmyers said:


> That's a very vague question. Are you referring to Ponderosa Gorge, Slickrock, or Gateway? You could probably float most of Slickrock with a couple hundred in an IK...
> 
> I too am stoked about the prospect of late April water coming out of McPhee.


I meant from the dam. So ponderosa canyon and slick rock to bedrock and down to the Colorado. I meant the whole thing. So how much water would u need to go down from the top.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

In a 14' raft? I think 600 would probably be enough, but Snaggletooth in particular will be boney....but that's a visual opinion, I have never boated Ponderosa. If you have enough to get through there it will be enough for the rest.


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

This sounds like a good deal environmentally. Not overly good for boatable flows, beyond low water IK, and K trips.


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

Why does the instream flow right not apply to the section above the San Miguel?


----------



## babylie (Aug 14, 2015)

restrac2000 said:


> ^This was what I was getting at. The language in the announcement seems to focus on the confluence not the upper stretch. Curious how that plays out historically as I haven't spent much time looking the flow data. Does the San Miguel normally release 900 cfs within the designated timeframe? If not, will the supplemental flow out of McPhee be enough for recreation?
> 
> The one thing that seems clear is the ecological picture is likely going to be much healthier.
> 
> Phillip


I also need this information , hopefully this can help me Thank you


----------



## efranz (May 12, 2009)

The gage at Gateway is fairly new, so no historic data, but it looks like for flows this past spring we would have a couple of weeks of something like ~700 cfs above the San Miguel confluence, had this water right been in place at the time.

Looking at daily mean historic flows on the San Miguel at Uravan (April 2001 - June 2015) it doesn't look so good. The April 15 mean flow for that period is about 700 cfs coming out of the San Miguel -- meaning McPhee would only have to release 200 cfs to meet the requirement. Here's a link to those data:
USGS Surface Water data for USA: USGS Surface-Water Daily Statistics


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

If the above holds out to be accurate than it seems the general consensus is true: good ecologically in the long run for the aquatic species but not so great for recreation. I specify aquatic species because steady flow regimes like this are not what riparian communities generically need to thrive; ultimately encouraging a more traditional spring flood regime would be healthier but we have to appreciate the legal baby steps taken to get there.

It will be curious to see how this effects McPhee management in the long run. At this point with such generic information it seems neutral for agricultural and recreational stakeholders in average years. The reservoir managers will have a more dynamic job of watching the downstream gauges but doesn't appear they will ultimately be moving much more water unless the San Miguel tanks. 

Looking at the data it seems possible that this might actually reduce spring recreation peaks considering the new yearlong protocol, i.e. flatter, longer continuous flows to meet obligations. Am I mislead concluding that could likely happen considering the water managers still need to prioritize upstream agriculture into the equation?

Phillip


----------



## ukonom (Nov 21, 2008)

Remember.. it will be a very junior water right. Very good for protecting against future depletions in the basin, but unlikely that they will release water out of McPhee to meet the new instream flow.


----------



## HydroMatt (Jun 10, 2011)

ukonom said:


> Remember.. it will be a very junior water right. Very good for protecting against future depletions in the basin, but unlikely that they will release water out of McPhee to meet the new instream flow.


Spot on with this reality check. Hell will likely freeze over before they voluntarily make a release; however, having the ISF opens up opportunities for a willing senior water right holder to lease water to someone, i.e. the Colorado Water Trust, to benefit the ISF. The Water Trust has pulled off some great agreements like this in the past on the Yampa and Roaring Fork, so hopefully something like is, or will be, in the works. Love the Dolores!


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

*Dolores minimum flows restored*

Looks like there is hope for 900 cfs boatable flows on the Dolores. American Whitewater is close to finalizing a resolution.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

Osseous said:


> Looks like there is hope for 900 cfs boatable flows on the Dolores. American Whitewater is close to finalizing a resolution.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


Sorry for the duplicate post- missed this thread initially.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

I've run Dolores at 1,000 in 16 foot paddle boats. It's doable if you're not expecting a flood.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

efranz said:


> The specifics of the instream flow water right will be as follows:
> 
> Reach: Confluence of the San Miguel River to the Town of Gateway (33 river miles)
> 
> ...


Do you know if the applications were indeed filed?

If so, is there an expectation of when these changes will take effect?


----------



## efranz (May 12, 2009)

The water right applications will be filed this month and will probably be decreed in 6 to12 months.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

efranz said:


> The water right applications will be filed this month and will probably be decreed in 6 to12 months.


Ah. So I can still keep making plans, I just need to slide them back to '17.


----------



## efranz (May 12, 2009)

Well, if this snow keeps up we will have good flows out of the San Miguel next spring.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Schutzie crawls out of his winter cave.

WHAT??!!

Dolores may run, even next year?

I"m in!

He runs off to see can he get a raft ready.


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

If you need a raft for that float, just holler. I'll go along for the education

Sent from my SM-N900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------

