WSP03164 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0026~9 Tamara Naumann (DNM) - NPS plans to control tamarisk on DNM. Unidentified - Is federal government seeking water rights from the Yampa? Roehm - No. The State holds all water rights for instream flows. Water would be stored under relatively junior rights for release later in the year when needed. Deliveries would be treated just like any other contract delivery from storage. Unidentified - What are "supply interruption contracts?" Roehm - Willing water users would be paid not to divert water they would otherwise be entitled 10 take in priority. However, little water would be available from direct-flow water rights in dry years. and there would be no protection for water bypassed...other water users could divert it. Unidentified - Are there opportunities for augmentation on the Little Snake? Roehm- There are no specific flow recommendations for the Little Snake. The LSR influences only the lowest reaches of the Yampa. Its principal contribution to the Yampa/Green rivers is sediment, which is transported by high spring flows. Base flow augmentation for the Yampa is intended to benefit the reach from Craig downstream. Any additional flow the LSR contributes to this reach during base flow conditions is considered a bonus. Dickinson - Recommends enlargement of Elkhead Res. for augmentation. Need to protect adjacent/downstream property owners. Plan must not (and does not) require water rights administration. Recovery Program must be willing to accept risk of losing some augmentation. Downstream water users will not intentionally take additional water provided by augmentation, but some incidental increase is expected. Water users should not have to adjust headgates to prevent this. "Good neighbor" policy is key to keeping the peace. Recovery Program agreed to pay for any improvements (e.g., gages, flumes) that may be necessary to ensure its deliveries. Bob Plaska (CDWR) - If river administration requires diversion modifications specifically for fish deliveries, they would be paid for by Recovery Program. However, flumes and headgates are required by CO law, and would not be paid for by Recovery Program. Geoff Blakeslee (Carpenter Ranch) - Will the proposed altematives require different operations than current? Roehm - Yes. Participating reservoir(s) perhaps will experience greater water level fluctuations. Blakeslee - Will native stream flows be different? Roehm - No. The objective of augmentation is to emulate historic conditions. Unidentified - Is it really necessary to remove channel catfish. They have coexisted with the endangered fishes for 100 years, before dams. Endangered fish did not decline until after Flaming Gorge was built and the river poisoned. Catfish are highly valued by anglers and should not be removed. Will catfish removal continue next year? Elmblad - Catfish are thought to be one of the biggest problems, especially in the lower reaches. Removing them from DNM will continue through 2003. They also will be removed from the river upstream from DNM and translocated to either Kenney Reservoir (White River) or Elkhead, where they would be available for anglers to harvest. Roehm - A significant reason for catfish control in DNM is that there is little fishing pressure on them there. Access is limited, and people who float through DNM generally don't fish. ~ I. Dickinson - Offered to receive comments from the public for Moffat County to consider in preparing its comments. Requested that comments be submitted to Jeff Comstock. Appendix E - Summary of Public Scoping Meetings E-?