7732 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• TALLY 9-EEr Instructions. For each of the impediments listed below, please check the single response which best represents your sense of priorities. The categories are as follows: Critical, must resolve/deal breaker * In progress, being resolved Not urgent, can't affect, bin Middle of the road 1 2 3 Is the state law in reference to "Minimum requirements to protect the environment to a reasonable degree" inconsistent with flows needed for fish recovery? Are there impediments in prior CWCB decisions to protecting flows for fish recovery? How should the Board address the uncertainties in the quantity of the flow recommendations? (e.g. A. Use of professional judgement, B. Methodology, and C. Consistency of methodology 1 • What latitude does the Board have to address situations in which it is not feasible to establish relationships between flow and population and/or habitat? 5. Is the potential for conflicts between full compact development and the instream flows needed for the endangered fish? How can such conflicts be avoided or resolved? a. Can Colorado identify, in a timely manner, its compact apportionment delivery and/or requirements on a stream-by stream basis? b. If timely identification of compact allocations is not possible, what instream flow protection is possible? Is a concern that instream water rights secured under the Recovery Program will implicitly allocate compact flows among tributaries an impediment to securing instream flow rights for endangered fish? c. Do compact delivery requirements present an impediment to protection of instream flows in the Yampa, or 15 mile reach for the benefit of the endangered fish? d. Is the fact that water must be available to preserve the natural environment without material injury to water rights an impediment? • ~y ~~ Q`~~ U ~ a 0 o ~ ~~ J~o, as o ~ z 3 3 3 5 5 2 2 4 9 3 1 1 9 3 3 12 1 6 8 1 6 1 7 1 7 3 2 3 2 0 6 4 -1-