Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />exists for defining the instream flow needs to protect particular species of fish or aquatic <br />ecosystems." They recommend that instream flow standards should be based on an "adaptive <br />management" approach utilizing a three step approach which would: <br /> <br />I) set conservative interirn flow standards based on current methodologies, <br />2) monitor the adequacy of the interim standards, and <br />3) revise the interim flow standards as necessary. <br /> <br />The Board's existing procedures are generally consistent with these experts' <br />recommendations. As suggested by McKinney and Taylor, the Board routinely evaluates its <br />instream flow filings on a case-by-case basis. The Board's decision to utilize the R2CROSS <br />methodology to quantify flow amounts on the majority of its coldwater streams is consistent with <br />Reiser's suggestion that selection of an instream flow methodology should be based on the nature <br />of the problem, time, financial, and logistic constraints, and the reliability and legal acceptability of <br />the method. The Board certainly recognizes the political and environmental continuum alluded to <br />by Lamb as it carries out its statutory duty to balance the needs of mankind with the reasonable <br />preservation of the natural environment. As suggested by Stalnaker, the Board's choice of an <br />instream flow methodology is generally dependent on the unique circumstances of each stream and <br />its surrounding community. <br /> <br />The CWCB's existing procedures are also consistent with Castleberry's three-step adaptive <br />management approach. By utilizing an accepted methodology, like R2CROSS, the Board is able <br />to provide a reasonable degree of protection, in a timely manner, on a large number of streams across <br />the state without generating a great deal of controversy. Once these initial water rights have been <br />decreed, they can be monitored to determine whether they are, in fact, providing a reasonable degree <br />of protection. If it is detennined that these initial instream flow rights are not providing sufficient <br />protection, the Board may consider utilizing other techniques to enlarge these rights in the future. <br />Conversely, if it is determined that the initial degree of protection is excessive, Colorado water law <br />affords the Board the opportunity to modify its decreed instream flow water rights downward. In <br />this way, the CWCB is able to provide a cost-effective initial degree of instream flow protection on <br />the majority of Colorado streams with the understanding that these instream flow rights may be <br />refmed at a latter date, if necessary. <br /> <br />16 <br />