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 />II. Potential Benefit to Stream Segments <br />With a focus on recreation, the legislation would be tailored to address sight- specific <br />needs and issues with regard to the Colorado River. Therefore, management of the area <br />could include other uses with a balance on conservation and development. A NRA could <br />potentially be less restrictive than a WSRA designation regarding future water <br />development projects and structures within the river segments. <br />III. Permanent Flow Protection <br />Each NRA is different. Language in the legislation could provide permanent flows, but it <br />is not a necessary criterion for establishment of an NRA. <br />IV. Pros and Cons <br />Pros <br />• NRAs can include within their boundaries scenic, historic, scientific, scarce, or <br />disappearing resources, provided the objective of their preservation is compatible <br />with the recreation mission. <br />• NRAs should be in conformity with State, regional, and local comprehensive plans. <br />• NRAs have a fee component that can be structured so that revenue stays local. <br />Cons <br />• NRAs need to be located and designed to achieve a high recreation carrying capacity. <br />• The focus is on recreation rather than multiple uses. The purpose is to preserve and <br />enhance recreation opportunities. Proposed activities would be weighted against the <br />impacts to recreation. No multiple uses can be carried on that would be significantly <br />detrimental to recreation. <br />• Because recreation is flow - dependant with regard to the Colorado River, we would <br />likely be developing a similar plan to protect and enhance flows, but mainly for <br />recreational purposes. Other flow dependent uses would be secondary and could be <br />precluded if those uses are detrimental to the protection of recreation interests. <br />• Requires high investment, development and operational responsibility of the Federal <br />management agency. <br />• NRA would probably not be satisfactory to other interests in this workgroup if <br />recreation needs have highest priority. <br />• NRAs require Congressional designation, which is a lengthy process and includes <br />factors that are potentially beyond the control of the Stakeholder Group. <br />• Federal management would be required. <br />7. NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREAS ("NCAS ") <br />I. Basic Concept <br />NCAs require federal legislation to protect areas on federal lands to conserve and protect <br />the range of natural and other values in the area (cultural, archaeological, natural, <br />wilderness, scientific, geological, historical, and biological, wildlife, educational, and <br />B -11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.