Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />The 404 permit, as Margaret pointed out many years ago, goes with the property and actually never expires; only the <br />mitigation work is completed. Therefore, the permit applies to this portion of Coal Creek on the Lowry Range rather <br />than exclusively to Schmidt. But, as Schmidt obtained the permit as required, so long as Schmidt is there the <br />management responsibility for the permit area is a joint effort between Schmidt and the Land Board. If Schmidt <br />leaves the property then the landowner (State Land Board) becomes the permit manager because the permit applies <br />to the land and not any particular person or persons. <br />As for the exclosure fences, it doesn't really matter whether they stay up or are taken down. My recommendation is, <br />so long as it appears at least some grazing may be allowed, the fences should stay up. If nothing else, this provides <br />some protected reference areas so any impact of grazing can be determined easily. As the reports have shown, the <br />vegetation inside and outside the exclosures is nominally the same now. There are still some residual effects from <br />grazing outside the exclosures, but they are very subtle and of little practical importance. Thus, with the introduction <br />of grazing, it is easier to determine the impact of grazing qualitatively or quantitatively by comparison with the <br />exclosures. That makes it much easier to properly manage the grazing to keep the impact within the proper ranges so <br />significant degradation of the riparian vegetation does not occur and full recovery is allowed to be completed. <br />Full recovery has certainly not been achieved at this point and probably can't be considered fully achieved for <br />another decade or so. But the amount of recovery is very promising for the eventual replacement of the old <br />generation trees that are rapidly dying out with a new and fresh generation. Six or seven years ago it did not appear <br />that would ever occur and all the old trees would basically die out leaving a riparian corridor devoid of trees. <br />Overgrazing and improperly managed grazing was the primary culprit in that decline. <br />Finally, I congratulate all for achieving an excellent result from what was originally a rather contentious and <br />depressing situation. It is clear that the correct path was chosen to rehabilitate the riparian corridor. Now it is <br />important to keep this process going. Water users and landowners downstream from this area should see an <br />improvement in the dynamics of particularly peak flows and a reduction in the damage they can inflict on valuable <br />property. To a limited extent, once rehabilitation of this magnitude on a western, ephemeral stream channel is <br />implemented, combined with the considerable improvement in the upland habitats that have occurred, the favorable <br />impact usually migrates downstream for some distance with noticeable improvement. The improvements <br />implemented here are along a fairly significant portion of the stream channel. I would expect sediment loads <br />downstream have declined some and that will provide an opportunity for riparian vegetation to improve. Of course, <br />how much improvement will largely depend on how well those land parcels are managed as well as how well <br />tributary drainages are managed. At the least, it can definitely be said that this portion of Coal Creek is not <br />contributing to the problems and, in fact, is adding some increased protection for downstream property. <br />Respectfully, <br />1 <br />Mark A. Heifner <br />