Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />'t' <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />refugia (if needed), the short periods of time during which the hydrologic record predicts that <br />sharing will be needed, and ongoing monitoring to assure that trout continue to flourish in this <br />environment. Below Egeria Creek, the protected flows can satisfY the needs of the stream while <br />allowing higher flows from approximately 5 ciS to 10 ciS to be utilized in the off-channel habitats. <br /> <br />An tl)<Amination of the R2 Cross samples completed above Egeria Creek in 2004 after the <br />restoratioP illustrates that 3 ciS would satisfY the winter (2 of3 criteria satisfied) flows needed and <br />approximately 6-6.5 ciS would satisfY the S\uwuE;1(3 of 3 criteria satisfied) flows needed. Based on <br />the tecbnical data, it is reasonable to request that flow sharing in this reach diverted at the Horn #2 <br />for Cameron Pond utilize a minimum stream !low of3ciS during the period of requested flow <br />sharing. The occurrence of low flows of approximately 3 ciS have been estimated to occur <br />regularly in this stream reach (Appendix IV) and a viable stream biota was identified at the time of <br />sampling in 2002 (pre-restoration). These data support a conclusion that 3ciS would mtJintain the <br />biota in this stream reach to a reasonable degree during late summer months. <br /> <br />Fishery and aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling completed for this project substantiated the <br />existence of a very viable aquatic biota in both reaches of Rock Creek on the Table Rock Ranch. <br />The flow record indicates that flows less than 10 c1S. similar to those proposed in the flow sharing <br />stipulation, also occurred with some 1Iequency. The condition of the stream biota observed in 2002 <br />substantiates that flows less than 10 em have supported and protected the biota to a reasonable <br />degree in this stream reach historical1y. The habitat restoration completed gives the biota that is <br />present additional habitat area to further reinforce the ability to protect the stream with lower flows. <br /> <br />Lastly, the location of areas of stream depletion by flow sharing are small in comparison to the <br />overall length of the ISF stream segment (7%). Each diversion uses water to support off channel <br />oxbows or ponds replaces water to the stream for a considerable distance before diversion occurs <br />again. The dist1ll'~ within each affi:cted reach VllIY from 800' to 2400'. This provides biota within <br />the affected reaches an ability to migrate to very proximate areas that are not affi:cted by the flow <br />sharing activities if needed. <br /> <br />Our proposed flow sharing agreeJIII"lt bas been developed in consultation with the Colorado . <br />Division ofW1ldli1e and the Colorado Water Conservation Board staft: In our opinion, the <br />following proposal will provide adequate protection of the biota in these habitats during times when <br />the CWCB ISF is in priority: <br />