BOARD02112 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Piceance Creek. It is, therefore, the staff recommendation that we change that appropriation of 250 second-feet to conform to the appro- priation above Piceance Creek so that the uniform appropriation on the White River below the junction of the North and South Forks will be 200 second-feet. This is not accepta~le to everyone concerned, but in our opinion, it helps to allay some of the fears of Rio Blanco County, their commissioners and the people over there, and it does no signifi- cant violence to the fishery below that point because the water is not there a good part. of the time anyway, particularly the contribution from Piceance Creek and lower tributaries. . . . This would requ.ire a backup on what we did at the last meeting and instructions to the Attorney General to amend the filing which has already been made to show that the requested appropriation on the White River from the junction of the North and South Forks down to the state line be 200 second-feet instead of 250 second-feet from Piceance Creek to the state line. MR. KROEGER: What is the desire of the board with regard to this? MR. SHERMAN: I would like to hear from the Division of Wildlife on the proposed modification. MR. BARROWS: We, again, discussed this, and I think we need to make a clear distinction here that Mr. Burkhard, in collecting these data, does so by empirical method. As Larry stated, the channel is there, and. .the 250 second-feet of .water is a perfecj:ly legitimate recommenda- tion for instream flows for ~nvironmental.purposes. From our limited' viewpoint, this includes fish and wildlife. It's almost restricted to that. Further, we are charged by our commission to manage all species of wildlife, not just. economic spe~ies. We have a strategic plan which specifically addresses this almost equally. As Larry also stated, we are talking about present endangered species. We are talking about other fish that were formerly considered ~rash fish and which are now considered by this division to be important. So here again we are not particularly satisfied that this reduction can be made. We can live with it. We may have set ourselves up in opposition to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service.. In so doing, they may recommend considerably more water than we have. I hope this isn ':t the case, but it's a possibility. I So, here again, it is a prudent compromise. As Mr. Cooley stated, it was grudgingly arrived at after some discussion. MR. SPARKS: I might point out to the board that we have placed hydro- graphic charts in the board folders which demonstra~e the flows that ..,.23.,.