Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..' <br />" <br />.. <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />l~mlllr'V.KIJ~ <br />~'? <br /> <br />Motfal Counly Natural Re'\.owces [)CPartf'OO'lt <br />221 W VK:loryWay.Sulle130.Cra.gCO&162S <br />Phone 970 H16 >400 Fu 970 820 3411 <br /> <br />j:(J/:>, <br />'':::C: <br />OfC :J.' ~ <br />C""'-"<.b W. , "'> ~005 <br />a,,,C;,, <br />""" <br />-ell,);; f:.. <br />",;,(' <br /> <br />December 9,2005 <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Stream and Lake I'rotection Program <br />Altn: Dan Merriman <br />1313 Sherman SI. Rm 721 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br /> <br />The Moffat County Commissioner.; have great concern over the two proposed instrcBm flow designations <br />in Moffat County. Considering Colorado Water Conservation Board's (CWCI3) new allemplto involvo <br />atTected interests prior to designations. we deeply appreciate the time that Jell Baessler and Todd Doherty <br />dedicated to the MotTat COWlty Land Use Board on November 7. 2005, In fact after listening to discussion <br />by the Moffat County Land Use Board, we appreciate that the North and South forks of Fortification Creek <br />have been deferred to 2007, and thaI the Linle Snake River, Red Wash, and Willow Creek are no longer <br />under cons ide-ration for instrcam flow designation <br /> <br />To date, we have not seen data to justify the two proposals before the board nor believe the information that <br />the CWCB has presented to the Moffat County Land Use Board offer.; any evidence for Moffat County to <br />support instream flow appropriatIons at this time. <br /> <br />OVERRIDING CONCERNS: <br /> <br />I) Currently the August 8, 2005 Candidate Streams fOT Instream Flow Appropriation (Division 6) <br />document and infonnal discussions with CWCB stafTare the only data availahle for review, <br />Discussions with staff indicate significant changes from the August 8"' Document We under.;tand <br />data will be forthcoming early January. and we request fair time to review and respond to the data <br />prior to CWCB consideration of these segments, We are deeply concerned about possible <br />adjudications that afTect Moffat County. without allowmg us to review the "reasoning"' behind <br />significant changes in the water rights. Until such time we are opposed to these appropriations <br />and n-ll"e<t ("WCB do not adjudicate any in-stream flows in Moffat CUUflly, <br />2) Affected landowners and water right owners have not been notified of proposed instream flows, <br />Notifying affected landowners/water right owner.; should occur as well as allow them due time to <br />comment on proposals before the CWCB appropriates any instream flows. <br /> <br />SPECIFIC CONCERNS: <br /> <br />Ikner Creek between 2 Ibr Crftk to tbe Utah Border: <br /> <br />1) Instream 'flow proposals are mvolous and duplicate existing US Fish and Wildlife Service <br />(lJSFWS) and Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) water rights. USFWS and DOW waler <br />rights are senior and significantly larger than all other junior (agriculture) water rights on Beaver <br />Creek. By the nature of their acquisition, they assure all necessary flows to protect the cold water <br />fishery in Beaver Creek, <br />2) Beaver Creek is over-adjudicated during all times of the year except peak runoff. where future <br />storage projects would need the adjudications that the instream flow proposal would tie up, <br />3) InstreaJn flow prevents the development of storage projects when they inundate greater than 50 <br />foot of the stream, This conflicts with polential for future storage development during high flows <br />on Beaver Creek, <br />