Laserfiche WebLink
<br />J <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"Two of the CWCB criteria (velocity and wetted perimeter) are met at 10 cfs, and three are met <br />at 24 cfs" (Page 3). <br /> <br />Based on this finding, Applicant's mitigation proposal requests that the Board agree to the <br />following diversion' schedule for the Trout Creek No.3 Ditch: <br /> <br />Winter (10/1-4/30) <br />Trout Creek above Caster Ditch <br />Diversion Point Allocation <br />2: II cfs 4.0 cfs <br />10 cfs 3,0 cfs <br />9 cfs 2.S cfs <br />8 cfs 2.0 cfs <br />7 cfs 1.0 cfs <br />< 6 cfs 0.0 cfs <br /> <br />Summer (S/1-9/30) <br />Trout Creek above Caster Ditch <br />Diversion Point Allocation <br />2: 24 cfs 4,0 cfs <br />22 cfs 3.0 cfs <br />19 cfs 2.0 cfs <br />16 cfs 1.0 cfs <br />S 15 cfs 0.0 cfs <br /> <br />In addition, based on information provided by the Applicant, it appears that there may have been <br />two unadjudicated diversion practices that were in existence at the time the Board made its <br />instream flow appropriation in 1982. The Applicant is still trying to determine whether those <br />practices existed, and to what extent they occurred. Applicant indicates that, historically, as <br />much as 5 c.f.s. was diverted year-round at the Trout Creek No. 3 headgate through Rankin <br />Reservoir and returned to Trout Creek through the ditch labeled "Ditch B" on the attached map. <br />In addition, the Applicant has indicated that there may have been a historic practice of running <br />water through the Caster Ditch year round. Pursuant to S37-92-102(3)b, the CWCB may be <br />required to recognize these historic practices as senior to its Trout Creek instream flow water <br />right if the Applicant is able to substantiate and quantify these pre-existing uses. <br /> <br />Current Status <br />On March 7,2000, staff met with the Applicant, CWCB representative Lewis Entz, and Division <br />3 Engineer Steve Vandiver in South Fork, Colorado. The meeting provided an opportunity to <br />discuss the Applicant's proposal and the historic, unadjudicated diversion practices. It also <br />included a site visit to Trout Creek. There was no consensus reached at the meeting regarding <br />quantification of the historic, unadjudicated diversion practices on Trout Creek, <br /> <br />Staff has identified four distinct reaches of Trout Creek it believes need to be evaluated under the <br />Applicant's proposal for Iniury Accepted With Mitigation. First, injury could occur on Trout <br />Creek from the Trout Creek No.3 headgate to the ditch labeled "Ditch B" on the attached map, <br />The Applicant has not rehabilitated the habitat in this reach of Trout Creek. Second, injury could <br />occur in the small reach from the ditch labeled "Ditch B" on the attached map to the upstream <br />boundary of the Nearburg property. Again, this reach of Trout Creek is not rehabilitated. Third, <br />injury could occur in the rehabilitated reach that is located on the Nearburg property. Finally, <br />injury could occur from the downstream boundary of Nearburg's property to the confluence of <br />Trout Creek and the Rio Grande River. While injury to the lowest stream reach would be small <br />(the evaporative losses), it is possible that the Applicant can identify the Caster Pond as an <br />augmentation source for the depletions to this segment. <br />