17 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Colorado Water Conservation Board January 7, 2008 Page 5 Creek is above 25 c.f.s. (3 of 3 criteria satisfied). When gaged flows drop below 25 c.f.s., then diversions into the Channels will be limited to 0.5 c.f.s., and diversions will cease entirely when the gaged flow in Trout Creek is below 15.1 c.f.s (2 of3 criteria satisfied). Further, these benefits to the natural enviromnent extend to over 8500 linear feet of Trout Creek, while the limited impacts from diversions into the Channels will affect approximately 2700 feet of the ISF reach - providing more than 3 feet of improved stI.eam for every 1 foot of potentially impacted ISF reach. Thus, the analysis performed by Wright Water demonstrates that the stream restoration work performed by Mr. Nearburg in 1998 provides adequate mitigation to allow the CWCB to continue to protect the natural environment on Trout Creek to a reasonable degree. In addition, Mr. Nearburg subsequently conducted additional restoration work in Trout Creek (in 2001) that focused in particulm: on nanowing the channel, thereby further improving the natural environment; however, the benefits of these subsequent mitigation measures have not been specifically quantified. C. Alternatives. The purpose ofthe Channels is to create additional fishery habitat and deep water refuge on Trout Creek, as a component ofthe overall habitat improvement and stream restoration work performed by Mr. Nearburg on Trout Creek. Mr. Nearburg has explored the following alternatives to the injury with mitigation plan described herein: i. Mr. NeaI.burg evaluated the possibility of developing or purchasing storage above the point of diversion for the ChaIUlels, in order to augment any diversions into the Chmmels. However, the reaches of Trout Creek not far above Mr. NeaI'burg's property me located on Federal lands, maldng the development of new storage structures unlikely. One existing storage structure, Rankin Reservoir, does exist above the ChaImels, however, Mr. Nearburg is not the owner of this structure. ii. Mr. Neal;burg considered the creation of mitigation habitat on reaches of Trout Creek outside of his Trout Creek RaI1Ch property; however, access aIld other issues made tins option infeasible. The on-site mitigation tIlat is the basis for tins proposal provides more direct benefits to the affected instream flow. D. Terms and conditions. Consistent with the MemoraIldum dated May 5, 2006, from the CWCB Staff concerning recommendations on implementing ISF Rule 8.i(3), Mr. N em'burg is mnenab1e to inclusion of tile following terms and conditions in a stipulation docmnenting ml injury with mitigation resolution (these terms aIld conditions me also reflected in tile enclosed draft Stipulation): 1. Channel No.1. The reach of Trout Creek affected by diversions into the "Trout Creek Fishery ChaImel No.1" is located above tile reach of tile prior restoration aIld habitat work performed by Mr. Nearburg. TIns reach of Trout Creek is currently unstable, eroding, braided and substaIltially over-widened (witIl the cun.ent chaImel width being approximately 120 feet to as much as 200 fee~ wide during baIucfull flow). Therefore, Mr.