My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12501
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12501
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:22 PM
Creation date
7/24/2007 12:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.102.01.G
Description
Colorado River - Water Projects - Aspinall Storage Unit - General - Water Rights
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Unknown
Title
Black Canyon of the Gunnison - ISF Water Rights-Flow Recommendations - Concerns Related to RIP Biology Committee Discussions of Revised Gunnison River Flow Recommendations - Date Unknown
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />000122 <br /> <br />utilize the habitat as they were drifting past. A similar rationale should be applied to all of the <br />targeted principal reaches of river and to all life stages of each of the endangered species. <br /> <br />We recommend inclusion of a life stage requirements table in the report that identifies <br />key flow requirements for different life stages in different river reaches. Such a table could be <br />usefully applied to implementation of the flow recommendations. <br /> <br />Implementation of Flow Recommendations <br /> <br />According to the RIP "Blue Book", it is the responsibility of the Service to provide the <br />RIP with flow recommendations. The RIP then collaboratively determines how to implement <br />those flow recommendations. Prior to addressing questions of implementation, the RIP asks its <br />Biology Committee to review the Service's flow recommendations for scientific adequacy. <br /> <br />Based on meeting summaries from the RIP Biological Committee, information from <br />attendees, and e-mail traffic from authors of the recommendations, it appears that some members <br />of the Biology Committee have become concerned with how the flow recommendations should <br />be implemented. For example, some of the Biology Committee members have expressed a <br />desire to "provide direction" to the operators of the Aspinall Unit by specifying particular flows <br />(instantaneous peak magnitude) as recommendations even though there appears to be little or no <br />~ scientific basis for those flows. Thus, It appears that members of the committee have stepped <br />beyond evaluating the scientific basis for the recommendations and are instead directing the <br />implementation of the recommendations. The Biology Committee should restrict itself to <br />determining whether the scientific bases for the flow recommendations are adequate. It is up to <br />the RIP to make a final implementation recommendation. As stated earlier, we recommend that <br />implementation guidelines be included in the revised flow recommendations report. These <br />guidelines could include a discussion of how annual decisions on flow magnitudes and durations <br />should be made, but they should not provide specific flow values. <br /> <br />l?~Vf~j rel'prl &-6hHe..9 /;') Ja..n('~O-r~ <br />,J3C In eef.s III J)e..a..-e Pl k . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.