My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02010
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:09:58 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:06:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/24/2001
Description
Snowmass Water and Sanitation District 404 Permit
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />the only species of trout successfully (allihough limited) reproducing. . . <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The data from the IFIM analysis shows that there is a significant <br />reduction in habitat for all life stages at a 4 cfs flow from the existing <br />conditions where flows range from 7 to 12 cfs. This reduction is as <br />much as 63% for both brown and brook trout spawning (and egg <br />incubation) habitat. The reductions for other life stages range from <br />approximately 12 to 48 percent. <br /> <br />Ex. 15 at 6. <br /> <br />In February, 1996, Don Chapman Consultants / BioAnalysts ("Chapman") <br />released WinterEcologyofTrout: Implications forSnowmass Creek. Ex. 14. <br />Chapman examined several methodologies for!measuring loss of trout habitat <br />suitability during the winter months. He conctuded that "at a flow limit of 7.0 cfs, <br />suitable velocities over brown trout redds would. be reduced by nearly 100%. <br />Actually, velocities over redds would be completely unsuitable during periods of ice <br />formation because the ice would reduce streamflows below the 7.0 cfs limit. .." Id. <br />at 36. <br /> <br />Thus, data developed since 1978 lead to ,no other conclusion but that 4 cfs is e <br />not adequate as a bypass or survival flow. A 4 Cis bypass will result in significant and <br />unacceptable degradation and loss of trout habitat. <br /> <br />In the process leading to issuance of a $ 404 pennit to the Ski Company in <br />1995, the Corps analyzed the impacts of diversions at the District's diversion <br />stmcture on the trout fishery in Snowmass Creek. The Corps relied in part upon the <br />Miller study discussed above: <br /> <br />Examination of Table 3 in the Miller report ( data from Chadwick and <br />Associates) shows that when the streami is dropped from 12 cfs to 7 cfs <br />there is a 34.3% and a 41.9% reduction tit spawning habitat for brown <br />and brook trout, respectively. In our opinion, a reduction of these <br />magnitudes, on a stream where spa~g habitat is limited, will <br />negatively impact the population of bro~ and brook trout. <br /> <br />Feb. 24, 1993, letter, Grady McNure to Fred Squth, Ex. 16 at 2. <br /> <br />The CWCB examined all of the above-cited ~cientific data when it adopted the <br />stairstep instream flow regime on Snowmass Creek in 1996. In announcing the new <br />flows, the CWCB's Director, Chuck Lite, state~, "Given the complexity of both the <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.