25 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 3/18/2008
• Description: ISF Section - 2009 Instream Flow Appropriations
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Cty
5 Eagle River (Increase to existing IsF rig t~ Eagle Town of Minturn,
(Existing ISF: 5-78W3796) CDOW
(Confl Cross Creek to c•onfl Gore Creek)
5 COr'r'al Creek (Increase to existing ISF rig t) (7Y" ,and BLM
(Existing ISF: 5-86CW214)
(Confl Smith Creek to confl Colorado River)
5 Troublesome Creek Grand BLM
(_Nlatheson Reservoir to Confl Rabbit Ears Creek)
5 Troublesome Creek Grand BLM
(Confl RabbitEars Creek to Pickering Ditch)
5 Buzzard Creek Mesa CDOW, TU
(Confl. Willow Creek to confl Owens Creek)
6 Moeller Creek Rio Blanco CDOW
(Headwaters to confl Fawn Creek)
6 Indian Creek Jackson BLM
(Headwaters to headgate W. Arapahoe Feeder•Ditch)
6 North Fork North Platte River Jackson BLM
(Headwaters to confZ Little Nellie Ditch)
6 South Fork Big Creek Jackson BLM
(ConfZ Wheeler Ck to Color•ado/Wvo~ning Border)
6 Piceance Creek Rio Blanco BLM, CDOW
(Con Z Dr • Fork to con White Rivet)
6 Yellow Creek Rio Blanco BLM, CDOW
(Springs to confl White River)
6 Grizzly creek Routt CDOW, TU
(ConfZ w/ Unnamed trih to USFS Boundary)
6 South Fork Slater Creek Routt CDOW, TU
(Headwaters to confl with Slater Creek)
6 West Prong South Fork Slater Creek Routt CDOW, TU
(Headwaters to confl South Fork Slater Creek)
* CDOW (Colorado Division of Wildlife), TU (Trout Unlimited) and BLM (Bureau of Land Management)
Staff will process these 35 segments during the next year. Staff will review, explore, develop
information, and identify and attempt to resolve issues on each of these segments so that the
Board can form its intent to appropriate instream flow water rights and make the necessary
findings per Rule Si that 1) there is a natural environment to be preserved; 2) there is water
available; and 3) the natural envu-onment can exist without material injury to water rights.
Basin Rotation vs. Recommendation Priot~tization
In 2006, the Board adopted and directed staff to implement a basin oriented approach for
considering new ISF recommendations. This policy guidance directed staff to work with the
recommending entities to develop recommendations in no more than two water divisions in any
given year. At the time the policy was adopted, the Stream and Lake Protection Section was
not fully staffed and concerns existed over resource limitations and the ability of staff to process
recommendations across multiple divisions. In addition, it was thought that limiting the number
of basins would provide certainty to some stakeholders that ISF issues in their basins would be
addressed in a specific and narrow timeframe, thereby allowing those entities to increase their
efficiencies in addressing issues related to proposed ISF recommendations.
At this time, the section is fully staffed and resource limitations are less of an issue. In addition,
other significant factors have been identified over the past two years which suggest that the basin