BOARD01736 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . .3- market value, and the pumpback system would be very expensive and difficult to permit and construct. Consequently, the District is requesting the CWCB to accept iJ1jury with mitigation if stream flows drop below the CWCB's decreed ISF amounts while the District is operating its Roaring Fork River exchange. This proposal would allow some injury to the subject Roaring Fork River ISF water right when sufficient exchange potential does not exist, but the mitigation offered by the Applicant may enable the Board to accept that injury while continuing to preserve the natural environment of the Roaring Fork River to a reasonable degree. Therefore, Staff is asking the Board to consider resolving this case under ISF Rule 8i. (3) (Injury Accepted with Mitigation). Iniury with Mitil!ation Proposal The District submitted a written injury with mitigation proposal to staff in July 2005, which is attached to this memo. Since then, staff and the District have negotiated some changes to the proposal. The proposal is summarized below. Stream Flow Measurements -- The District originally proposed that during dry years, it would measure Roaring Fork River flows at a point near Basalt just upstream of the Highway 82 bridge crossing on a weekly basis, report those measurements to the DWR and CWCB, and take certain actions when flows reached specified levels. For purposes of this proposal, "dry year" is defined as a year that occurs on a recurrence level of 1 year in 10 or greater, based upon April 1 snowpack data from multiple NRCS Snowtel sites in the Upper Roaring Fork basin. The District also proposed that if a permanent stream gage was installed in the subject reach of the Roaring Fork River, it would commit to be a cooperating agency and contribute up to $2,500 annually for operation and maintenance ("0 & M") of the gage. Based upon discussions with the DWR and the District, staff proposed that the CWCB install a permanent gage in the critical reach of the River and that the District (1) commit to contribute $5,000 annually for 0 & M of the gage and (2) negotiate with other local water users to form a group of cooperators to pay for the remaining 0& M costs. The District's board will consider this proposal at its September 13, 2005 board meeting, and Scott Fifer, the District's consultant, will update the CWCB on September 14. Staff has been coordinating with the DWR on gaging needs in Division 5 and already had been considering installing a gage on this reach of the River. The installation of the gage by the CWCB and the financing of 0 & M of the gage by the District and other local entities would result in more effective administration and protection of numerous water rights in the area, including the CWCB's instream flow water rights. Staff and the District still are gathering information on the costs of installation and 0 & M ofthe gage. Mitigation Measures Based Upon Low Flow Measurements - In dry years, the District will monitor the gage weekly and take the following actions based on flow measurements. If flows in the critical reach of the River drop to 62 cfs (7 cfs above the decreed ISF amount), the District will (1) coordinate with the Division Engineer to ensure that all junior diversions are curtailed; and (2) send letters to all District contractees located in the upper Roaring Fork River directing them to implement water conservation measures as described in the District's water conservation handbook. Preparation and distribution ofa Water Conservation Handbook is part of the offered mitigation. Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning