Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002GH <br /> <br />Sharp - The principal difference between DNM and the Black Canyon is that a federal reserve water <br />right was granted (but unquantified) in 1978. No such water right exists for DNM in Colorado (i.e., <br />the Yampa River). <br />Roehm - That is true, but Utah may grant NPS a water right for DNM (i.e., the Green River). But <br />this would not require Colorado to deliver any additional water to Utah other than what is already <br />required under Compact. <br /> <br />Mike Neumann (City of Steamboat Springs) - Where would the base flow be measured? <br />Roehm - Currently, Maybell has been ourreference site and could be used in the future. This is due <br />to its long and reliable history. However, measurement could be made farther downstream, possibly <br />above the Little Snake River. The Deerlodge Park gage has been too unreliable. <br /> <br />Eric Berry (Town of Yampa) - Where is the critical habitat for the endangered fish? <br />Roehm - Critical habitat for all species is downstream from Craig. Only Colorado pikerninnow are <br />know to occur that far upstream. Other species (razorback sucker, humpback chub) are restricted <br />to the lower reaches in DNM. Therefore, actions taken in the Upper Basin would not directly impact <br />the species. However, depletions basin-wide indirectly impact the fish and their critical habitat. <br /> <br />Bill Chace - Does not believe translocation (of northern pike) is cost effective. Thinks money can <br />be better spent on habitat enhancement Supports a bounty to anglers to increase harvest. <br />Roehm - The nonnative fish control element of the Yampa Plan is excerpted from the CDOW <br />Yampa Aquatic Wildlife Management Plan. CDOW has not ruled out bounties and would support <br />locally sponsored fishing tournaments as a means of increasing harvest. Cost effectiveness should <br />be a consideration, but the Yampa Plan itself does not prescribe nor prohibit any actions CDOW <br />mtght propose. <br /> <br />Bob Krautkramer - Favors lethal control of north em pike over translocation. <br />Roehm - CDOW is trying to preserve a fishery for anglers in the basin. Subsistence anglers have <br />expressed satisfaction with the translocation program. Sport fisherman (and outfitters) who float the <br />ri ver are more likely to be impacted. <br /> <br />Mike Zopf - Asked about the estimate of future trans-basin diversions. Why so few? <br />Roehm - No potential new trans-basin diversions were identified. Diversions from the Yampa River <br />are expected to increase slightly (from Y amcolo), while diversions from the Little Snake River in <br />Wyoming will increase more (for Cheyenne). <br />Zopf - Could water above Stillwater Res. be used for "exchange water"? <br />Roehm - The management plan does not restrict how and by what sector the increment of depletions <br />is developed. Assignment of depletions by sector in the plan was for the purpose of estimating those <br />depletions. Allocation of water will follow Colorado (and Wyoming) water law. <br />John Armiger - Why are Stillwater, Yamcolo or Bear Res. noton the list of potential augmentation <br />sources? <br />Roehm - These reservoirs have relatively small capacities compared with Steamboat, Stagecoach <br />or Elkhead and are located farther from the critical habitat where the water is needed. Use of them <br />for this purpose also is limited by institutional constraints. <br />Sharp - Bear Reservoir is a CDOW facility; Stillwater and Yamcolo are 100% allocated to <br />irrigation. <br /> <br />~ <br />-I <br />I. <br /> <br />Appendix E - Sununary of Public Scoping Meetings <br /> <br />E-2 <br />