GMUG Instream Flow Pathfinder Project

Public Meeting #5

June 5, 2002

6:30-9:00pm

Memorial Hall, Hotchkiss, CO

FLIP CHARTS NOTES

General Public Comments

• Must account for the fact that man-made structures on the Forest have altered the natural ecology of the stream systems (both positively and negatively).
• Forest Service should practice wholistic management - focusing on the overall system.
• Keep this water on the Western Slope. If there is no water, there is nothing to manage.
• Preserve historical rights and uses first.
• Recommendations must follow the State's prior appropriation and management system.
• Encourage greater cooperation between State, Federal, and local agencies (within the existing legal framework).
• The Forest Service should accomplish its goals using its own means (not by taking private or other interests).
• Are all ditches and reservoirs on the GMUG Forest permitted?

Important Ecological Issues

• Positive impacts to wildlife from agricultural diversion.
• Consider water development to satisfy both human and ecological needs.
• Streambank management might include fencing cows off riparian areas. Another audience members suggested that this may not be a practical idea. Limiting use may be more feasible.
• Emphasize the importance of reservoirs to both extend and augment low flow periods. Positive impacts of reservoirs should be well understood and accounted for.

Important Human Uses

• Maintain Forest Service's multiple use doctrine.
• Human uses should not degrade the natural integrity of GMUG Forest stream systems.
• Conversely, ecological needs should not degrade the quality/viability of human uses.
• Domestic use (e.g., cisterns).

Unique stream segments of concern or conflict?

• Upper Muddy Creek - select areas need erosion control.
• Wildlife/beaver control/management should be investigated to augment streamflows. Forest Service should work with the Division of Wildlife to evaluate how beaver dams impact streamflows.

Are there any potential streamflow management strategies that we missed?

• Reservoir storage is a KEY SOLUTION.
• Stocking threatened and endangered fish species in historically un-populated stream reaches, is NOT an ecological value that should be preserved or receive special consideration.
• Must account not for just diversion, but also return flows and other additions back to natural system. Should account not only for debits, but also additions to system.
• Consider that declines in stream flows may not be the only negative influence on the health of cutthroat trout populations.
• Consider the importance of groundwater recharge for healthy streamflows.

Any MAJOR CONCERNS regarding the management tools proposed?

• Must balance the need for reservoirs and fish (e.g., trout) habitat. The CWCB should offset the costs/impacts of new reservoirs with new instream flow rights.
• If bypass flows are required, the Forest Service should pay the ditch company, or individual permittee.
• Consider the economics of all best management practices proposed. If these solutions are uneconomical, then they are clearly not "best" or feasible.
• Maps may NOT be accurate regarding certain features.
• The State should have more input on water management on the Forest.
• How will the Forest Service address the takings issue?

Meeting adjourned 9:35 pm