Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />QUANTIFICATION SUPPLEMENT. LITILE DRY CREEK <br />July 1, 1993 <br />PAGE 2 <br /> <br />BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE <br /> <br />At the May, 1993 Colorado Water Conservation Board meeting little Dry Creek <br />instream flow recommendations were discussed as Preliminary Recommendations. The <br />Division of Wildlife's Instream Flow Program Coordinator was unable to attend that <br />meeting. The discussion by the CWCB and the public comments have brought to light some <br />issues that need to be illustrated further. The purpose of this report is twofold; first, it will <br />attempt to address several questions regarding methodology and criteria, and secondly it will <br />discuss and expand upon the rationale for the instream flow recommendations to be <br />contained in the Final Notice. After further investigation and consultation with the CWCB <br />staff, the CDOW has modified and refined its flow recommendation for little Dry Creek <br />to more accurately address the instream needs and the hydrologic issues. <br /> <br />METIlODOWGIES AND CRITERIA ISSUES <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It has been brought to the Division's attention that there was considerable discussion <br />regarding the methods and criteria used in developing the flow recommendations. The <br />Division regrets that these issues could not be adequately and immediately addressed at the <br />May, 1993 meeting. Both of these issues were discussed at CWCB meetings in the early <br />stages of this project but they are important enough that they should be discussed again in <br />this report so that the discussion at the July, 1993 meeting may remain focused. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It has always been the position of the Division that the instream flow method of <br />choice for little Dry Creek was IFlM. This is a significant departure from the routine <br />nature of most instream flow cases that the CWCB has dealt with in the past where <br />R2CROSS was the primary tool for quantification. It was because of this departure from <br />tradition that the CWCB staff and the CDOW approached this project carefully and in close <br />consultation with the Board. Recall that on several occasions there were informational <br />items on the CWCB agenda where the methods of quantification were reported to the <br />CWCB. In those reports to the CWCB the uniqueness of this case was discussed; Little Dry <br />Creek is a very unique stream system, it is an urban stream, it is a stream which does not <br />have a trout population, rather it is populated by non-game warm water fishes, it has unique <br />hydrologic characteristics, and it has riparian system that is fairly unique for urban settings. <br />Because of the nature of the resident fish population, R2CROSS (the instream flow method <br />of choice for trout streams) was not an appropriate methodology to address the instream <br />needs of Little Dry Creek, IFIM was the ONLY logical choice for a methodology and the <br />CWCB requested that the CDOW proceed utilizing that tool. <br /> <br />As for the issue of criteria - specifically the question was, ''what procedure points the <br />