My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01229
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01229
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:59:14 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:51:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/23/2005
Description
ISF Section - ISF Subcommittee
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
<br />~" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Other Issues Identified by Subcommittee Members <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />New, appropriate and flexible identification methodologies to define "the minimum <br />amount of water necessary to protect the environment to a reasonable degree." (Only <br />using R2Cross coupled with water availability does not identify in a positive way how life <br />forms adapt in a riparian habitat when water is pulled from a stream or river for <br />consumptive beneficial uses as it is in Colorado, particularly in the lower elevations <br />where warm-water species occur.) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Role of other parties (DOW, Parks, BLM, etc.) in presenting/supporting candidate <br />streams. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Should we adopt a procedure by which the Board, by Board action, may remove a <br />stream reach from the work plan for a period of time, before the Board begins to <br />consider the initiation of an appropriation? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Should we adopt a procedure by which possible appropriations for a stream reach are <br />"vetted" by potentially interested groups early in the process, while still on a work plan? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Should we have different criteria for evaluating candidate stream reaches. whicl1 are <br />below existing or proposed diversions/storage, than those which are above? <br /> <br />. With the evidence of a "gap" from the SWSI study, how do we avoid having candidate <br />reaches in the gap-sensitive drainages exacerbate the gap, Le., what procedures can <br />we consider so that the appropriations are at least "neutral" in the impact on future <br />efforts to close that "gap"? <br /> <br />. How do we factor into our decision-making process the existence or likely existence of <br />other flow preservation decrees/compacts/recovery program agreements that <br />accomplish the same ends as an instream flow appropriation? <br /> <br />. Why do we penalize those who may inundate an instream flow reach? <br /> <br />. How are we going to "manage" our instream flow water rights into a future of a scarce <br />water environment? <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.