My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10 (2)
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
10 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:33:53 PM
Creation date
11/30/2007 10:24:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/18/2007
Description
ISF Section - Uncontested 2007 Instream Flow Appropriations
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Summary <br />The information contained in this report and the associated instream flow file folder forms the <br />basis for staff's instream flow recommendation to be considered by the Board. It is staff's <br />opinion that the information contained in this report is sufficient to support the findings required <br />in Rule 5.40. <br />Colorado's Instream Flow Program was created in 1973 when the Colorado State Legislature <br />recognized "the need to correlate the activities of mankind with some reasonable preservation of <br />the natural environment" (see 37-92-102 (3) C.R.S.). The statute vests the CWCB with the <br />exclusive authority to appropriate and acquire instream flow and natural lake level water rights. <br />In order to encourage other entities to participate in Colorado's Instream Flow Program, the <br />statute directs the CWCB to request instream flow recommendations from other state and federal <br />agencies. The Bureau of Land Management recommended this segment of Pauline Creek to the <br />CWCB for an enlarged water right under the Instream Flow Program. Pauline Creek is being <br />considered for an enlargement because it has a natural environment that can be preserved to a <br />reasonable degree with an enlarged instream flow water right. The BLM is very interested in <br />protecting stream flows because Pauline Creek supports a diverse fishery and very healthy <br />riparian environment in an otherwise very arid location <br />Pauline Creek is 14.5 miles long. It begins on the northwestern flank of Stewart Peak in the La <br />Garita Wilderness at an elevation of approximately 13,100 feet and terminates at the confluence <br />with Cohcetopa Creek at an elevation of approximately 9,800 feet. Of the 4.1 mile segment <br />addressed by this report, 77% percent is located on federal lands. Pauline Creek is located within <br />Saguache County. The total drainage area of the creek is approximately 42.2 square miles. <br />Pauline Creek generally flows in a northeasterly direction. <br />The subject of this report is a segment of Pauline Creek beginning at the confluence with Chavez <br />Creek and extending downstream to the headgate of the Tarbell and Alexander Ditch, which is <br />immediately upstream of the confluence of Cochetopa Creek and Pauline Creek (see Map <br />Appendix D). The proposed segment is located southeast of the City of Gunnison. The staff has <br />received only one recommendation for this segment, from the BLM. The recommendation for <br />this segment is discussed below. <br />Justification for Enlargement <br />BLM has determined the existing Instream Flow regime, a single year-round discharge value, is <br />inadequate to protect the natural environment to a reasonable degree. This determination results <br />from an assessment of the importance of a snowmelt-dominated flow regime to, among other <br />things, the geomorphology of Pauline Creek. The single discharge value fails to provide for the <br />periodic higher flows needed to remove accumulated sediment and algal deposits, recharge <br />riparian groundwater, provide spawning trigger flows, and maintain adequate winter-period pool- <br />water exchange. As a result, BLM completed additional field data collection and concluded all <br />three of the flow factors considered (wetted perimeter, depth and velocity) had to be protected in <br />the Instream Flow Water Right. With the existing year-round flow only two of the target values <br />for these factors were regularly achieved. Only by increasing the ISF values could the three <br />factors, and the resulting geomorphic and biologic functions, be protected. <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.