Laserfiche WebLink
<br />h?-7'-~ <br />. <br /> <br />, "<':~"" <br />Z ." "1:'-"~ <br />."'---".~~\'>"- <br />. <br /> <br />3, A biologic report entitled "Final Report: Preliminary Bioassessment of Trout Creek With <br />Evaluation ofImpacts and Mitigation", <br />4. And a supplemental biologic report entitled "Final Report: Determination of Low Flow <br />Threshold Value for Habitat in Trout Creek", <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The proposed plan for Iniurv Acceoted with Mitigation would permit the Applicant to divert up <br />to 4 cfs of water through Caster Ditch and Caster Pond for fishery habitat purposes at times when <br />the CWCB's Trout Creek instream flow is not satisfied. The Applicant would return the diverted <br />water to Trout Creek after it runs though Caster Ditch and Caster Pond, Applicant requests that <br />the Board accept this injury to its Trout Creek instream flow water right because the Applicant <br />has mitigated the injury through stream and bank rehabilitation on the Nearburg property. <br /> <br />Applicant's request for injury with mitigation is supported by an engineering report that was <br />prepared for the Applicant by Wright Water Engineers (WWE) entitled "Final Report: <br />Preliminary Bioassessment of Trout Creek With Evaluation of Impacts and Mitigation." The <br />WWE report concludes th,:t: <br /> <br />I) The habitat of Trout Creek, in the segment proposed to be depleted, was not of high <br />quality prior to enhancement projects implemented by Mr. Nearburg . . . <br />2) Channel improvements in Trout Creek, in the segment proposed to be depleted, have <br />resulted in both more and higher quality habitat for aquatic life so the condition of the <br />habitat is better than conditions that existed when the CWCB initially developed <br />minimum stream flows, <br />3) Improvements to Caster Pond have resulted in deep water habitat where none . <br />previously existed which should provide better over-wintering conditions. . . <br />4) Improvements to Caster Ditch will result in substantial piscatorial/aquatic habitat <br />where none previously existed . . , Caster Ditch should provide better piscatorial <br />habitat than the same amount of water left in Trout Creek, and <br />5) The quantity of new and rehabilitated habitat exceeds the total length of Trout Creek <br />that would be depleted, and likely far exceeds the amount of habitat that could <br />potentially be affected. <br /> <br />In summary, the WWE report concludes that "the diversion of 4 cfs from Trout Creek through <br />Caster Ditch on the Nearburg property may have a negative impact on some aquatic habitat <br />protected by the CWCB's water right. However, the enhancement work conducted on Trout <br />Creek, Caster Ditch, and Caster Pond is believed to have provided additional high quality habitat <br />that more than mitigates any adverse impacts. The end result essentially constitutes 'injury with <br />mitigation. ", (Page 3 7). <br /> <br />Applicant's "Final Report: Determination of Low Flow Threshold Value for Habitat in Trout <br />Creek" indicates that the Applicant's stream habitat improvements would allow the Board to <br />continue to preserve the natural environment in Trout Creek to a reasonable degree with less <br />water than is currently decreed to the Board for that purpose. Applicant bases its claim on cross <br />section information that their biologists and engineers collected within the rehabilitated stream <br />reach. Using an approach similar to the state's R2CROSS methodology, the report finds that . <br />