BOARD00150 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mar 20 00 03: 13p kassen@trout unlimited 3031'440-7933 p.5 ~ . . Improved segment. Mr. Nearburg bas clearly tried to do habitat improvements the "right" way, with sound teclmica1 guidance and tied to protection of riparian habitat. His improvements provide a meaningful benefit to the stream and its natural enviromncnt. . Lower segment. Since the ditch was modified to return flows from Caster Pond to Trout Creek, this lower reach is impacted only by evaporative losses. We suspect that these j"'l'~c1s would be minimal, especially in the winter low-flow season, . Outstllldinz issues to be resolved. While we are impressed with Mr. Nearburg's habitat improvement effurts, there an: some rr.maining issues that must be addressed before the Board gives final approval to his request. . Staging table. We agree with staff that the proposed staging table offered by Mr. Nearburg does not provide sufficient protection for the Board's instream flow rights in Trout Creek. Based on the reports submitted by Mr. Nearburg, the proposed 6 cfs base flow for Trout Creek meets only one of the CWCB's 1iuee criteria for minimum flows. Two criteria - the standard expectation for winter flows - an: met at 10 cD (or perlIaps less; the report does not specify). In contrast, 1 cfs meets two of three criteria for Caster Ditch. Yet additional flows over 1 c.fs would be provided to Caster Ditch befo~ flows adequate to meet two of 1iuee criteria an: provided to Trout Creek. We disagree with that approach aDd believe that the first priority under the staging table should be to meet the minimum winter flows (two of three criteria) for Trout Creek before providing excess water to Caster DitclL . Pennanency. The improvements Mr, Nearburg has made may not endure due to natural fiIctors or future changes in land ownership. The CWCB should cmure that there is long- term monitoring to ensure that the improvements mnain effective and retain the ability to reopen this issue and Mr, NearbUIg's decree should the improvements filiI. This monitoring may include standard habitat assessment techniques (like EP A's River Walk) and periodic reassessments using R2Cross of an identified cross-section on Trout Creek. . Administration. The Board IIUJSt also ensure that flows can be monitored to implement its agreement with Mr, Nearburg. This would require placement and maintenance of a gage for Trout Creek that could be used by Mr. Nearburg's on-site staff aDd the water commissioner to adjust diversions in Caster Ditch as needed to maintain flows in Trout Creek. .