My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Upper Colorado River Stakeholder Group Conceptual Plan for a Wild and Secnic Management Alternative June 30 2009
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
6001-7000
>
Upper Colorado River Stakeholder Group Conceptual Plan for a Wild and Secnic Management Alternative June 30 2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2012 2:38:04 PM
Creation date
10/5/2012 1:54:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Upper Colorado River Stakeholder Group Conceptual Plan for a Wild and Secnic Management Alternative June 30 2009
State
CO
Date
6/30/2008
Title
Upper Colorado River Stakeholder Group Conceptual Plan for a Wild and Secnic Management Alternative June 30 2009
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.
/
61
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
June 30, 2008 <br />IV. Pros and Cons <br />Pros <br />• FMPs allow water facilities to be operated in ways that maintain and in some cases <br />enhance fisheries, habitat, and water -based recreation. <br />• Provides a dynamic program that can be adjusted and refined to address changing <br />conditions in the river system. <br />• Does not promote or restrict water development, but rather provides goals and <br />commitments for operating water systems. <br />• Flow protection may be achieved by exercising water rights which are senior to any <br />Recreational In- Channel Diversion ( "RICD ") or instream flow ( "ISF ") that could be <br />obtained in lieu of the FMP. <br />• Provides water users with the flexibility to adjust operations based on anticipated <br />hydrology, operational constraints, system maintenance needs, emergencies, and <br />other considerations. <br />Cons <br />• Applicability /success of program highly dependent on location, size, and <br />configuration of water facilities. <br />• May result in loss of system yield due to inability to capture releases. <br />• Water users may require the construction of additional downstream facilities to <br />restore system yield. <br />• Water users may not all be able to participate in the FMP at the same level due to <br />various operational, technical, and legal constraints. <br />• Stakeholders may have concerns over the permanency and reliability of flow <br />protection. <br />5B. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT VOLUNTARY FLOW PLAN <br />I. Basic Concept <br />The concept for an adaptive management flow plan ( "AMFP ") is based upon the premise <br />that the status quo conditions are sustaining, protecting and enhancing the ORVs. <br />Mechanisms that offer protection of the status quo and other voluntary efforts will <br />provide protection plus enhancement of ORVs. <br />The AMFP could provide minimum flow protection via a CWCB ISF or other <br />mechanism. Status quo protective operations and agreements such as those described in <br />concepts 1 (Existing Water Rights) and 2 (Upper Colorado River Endangered Species <br />Recovery Program) described above also protect flows in Segments 4 through 7. <br />The AMFP could enhance flows by identifying target flows suggested for each ORV. <br />Goals to reach targets could be developed to enhance flows for ORVs. These efforts <br />include annual meeting of water users to determine if operations can provide flows at <br />critical times. When new water development projects or changes in operations are being <br />proposed water users and AMFP participants would determine if and how target goals <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.