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 />identified in plan could be met. AMFP participants would determine stream <br />improvements that might maximize available flows. <br />Other voluntary efforts to enhance ORVs that would encompass the entire Management <br />Plan (not just the flow protection component) include establishing funding mechanisms, <br />and convening a management committee or enhancement board to determine stream <br />improvement projects that could be done on federal and private land. Best Management <br />Practices (`BMPs ") for new structures and facilities that might impact ORVs could be <br />established and applied to participating public and private landowners. A monitoring <br />program could be established to identify and prioritize issues that may negatively affect <br />ORVs and to prevent degradation. <br />The AMFP doesn't need a minimum flow requirement. It recognizes that ISF right or <br />some other protection permanently protects the status quo condition and is therefore <br />adequate to protect the ORVs. Voluntary mechanisms to provide flows will enhance the <br />flow - dependent ORVs. This concept incorporates flexibility and awareness that <br />conditions will change. Reaching average target flows is an achievable goal on average, <br />but may not occur every year. Certain "voluntary efforts" generally described at the <br />onset of the AMFP may become more defined and offer permanent protection (as a result <br />of new agreements, as a result of reasonably foreseeable projects' mitigation plans,). <br />Thus, voluntary and beneficial efforts can be additive without committing parties beyond <br />their operational ability at this time. <br />II. Potential Benefit to Stream Segments <br />The AMFP can protect ORVs while maintaining flexibility for water users. The AMFP <br />proactively adapts with changing conditions. <br />III. Permanent Flow Protection <br />The AMFP can provide permanent flow protection through an ISF right or some other <br />mechanism that protects a minimum flow. As uses and conditions change, parties find <br />new ways meet provide target flow goals. <br />IV. Pros and Cons <br />Pros — See 5a discussion <br />Cons — See 5a discussion <br />6. NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS ("NRAS ") <br />I. Basic Concept <br />NRAs require federal legislation to protect areas on federal lands that are extraordinary in <br />quality and recreation. They are intended for recreational use and recognize recreation as <br />the dominant purpose. <br />I: 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.