Laserfiche WebLink
What actions can agencies take on eligible, Wild& Scenic River Process: <br /> suitable,or designated segments? Federal Water Rights <br /> • Eligible=do no harm • Ccxtgressiottal <br /> _ _ • Suitable.=protect,enhance, r <br /> +s i t designation has <br /> balance use.,address ducats - historically included a <br /> • Designation=all federal µ federal reserved water <br /> right <br /> � -,+,v at;cncns hoed up to protect -' - <br /> �, `"'e - die designated segment • Agency determination <br /> ,a w- <br /> 'sI hamlout for details. .vt "av <br /> of suitability does not <br /> ''°a 4 ,114 =r .. : inClUd a water right. <br /> r : <br /> Wild& Scenic River Process: Existing"Suitable" Determinations <br /> Federal Water Rights with Colorado <br /> • Rio Grande below Alamosa �,_. .k's- -t < <br /> • l f Congressional designation occurs the , <br /> Congressional Wildlife Refuge-since 1991 ; ` <br /> managing agency quantifies the amount • Arkansas River-above Canon <br /> City ,, 41.":„;44 <br /> support timing of water necessary to suport y-since 1996 , <br /> the OR 's. • Beaver Creek(tributary to 5,at of . '1," <br /> Arkansas River)-since 1996 a ,n4_ <br /> a\\'titer right adjudicated in state court • Dolores River below McPhee t, <br /> f l Reservoir-since 1976 ,. ` <br /> •"the federal water right receives a priority >� .:,-,.r " <br /> la • Gunnison River Gorge below y �� <br /> equal to the date of designation—junior to Aspinall Unit-since 1979 k .,t 4. <br /> all existing rights. _ r,,,_,,,t r'3+' .- <br /> BLM Perspective on"Suitable"Determinations BLM Perspective on"Suitable"Determinations <br /> • lil\I understands that there could be conflicts between water • \"suitable determination creates federal land use plans that <br /> projects and de signari,Jit of a stream into the national system. tic designed to support rvet-related values. <br /> • There is huge difference between"suitable"and designation. <br /> • \-suitable"de Ccrmutatwn includes no❑tstrrant flow water <br /> riultts,but federal permitting au thont) can be used to address <br /> • (;dyer concerns about"suitable"determinations lder i or projects that could deplete flows necessary to support OR\s. <br /> el,signation,131.11 is very open to stakeholder input and <br /> • An mstream flow water right includes no land use protections. <br /> alternatives. <br /> • _An"eliOble"or"suitable"determination does not necessarily <br /> • A"ttutable"determination+instream flow protection=very <br /> eliminate multiple uses from a stream corridor:new uses can <br /> If 11 nutuyanon to designate a stream into National Wild and <br /> tit iii with good planning/design. <br /> Scenic Rivers System because the stream is already fully <br /> protected. <br /> • 111,M has seen no evidence that an"eligible"or"suitable" <br /> determination with a"recreational"or"scenic"classification <br /> • Designation is best accomplished when a broad range of <br /> water dci e lopntcitt. stakeholders want permanent protection for a"legacy"stream <br /> prevents new <br /> corridor. hi.1I is not attempting to force designations. <br /> - <br /> 3 <br />