Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Final Report <br /> <br />April 2004 <br /> <br />In Colorado, imposing bypass flows (as well as the failure to impose bypass flows) as <br />part of a special-use permit renewal have been subject to litigation. Much of the <br />controversy involving bypass flow authority and preservation of water rights has not been <br />fully resolved and therefore continues to be an issue of great interest for water users as <br />well as other parties interested in water resource use and protection. <br /> <br />The Colorado state agencies were concerned that the Forest Service had not been an <br />active participant in the Colorado ISF Program. They and some ofthe other stakeholders <br />believed the ISF Program could provide needed instream flow protection, but has not <br />been part ofthe Forest Service water-management strategy. For a variety of reasons, <br />other stakeholders were less convinced of the effectiveness of the State's program to <br />meet the full range of resource management and protection needs onNational Forest <br />lands. <br /> <br />A third concern related to federal adherence to state water law and recognition of <br />privately held water rights surfaced after the initial Steering Committee meetings. Some <br />stakeholders felt that state water law could also be a hindrance in providing instream flow <br />protection on National Forests and believed that the Forest Service could not adequately <br />carry out its resource management mandates without some authority over the waters on <br />National Forest lands. However, all stakeholders generally recognized the necessity to <br />respect existing water rights. <br /> <br />Public Meetings <br /> <br />The Pathfinder Project Steering Committee recognized that, while bypass flows, <br />Colorado ISF Program participation, and recognition of existing water rights were <br />important issues, there is a need to obtain more insight into issues and concerns held by <br />the public with regard to water use, water management and instream flow protection on <br />NFS lands. Accordingly, the Steering Committee decided to develop a public <br />involvement program component to help further identify water use issues and concerns. <br />The Steering Committee utilized the services ofthe Colorado State University Extension <br />Service to develop and manage the public outreach activities. Radio and newspaper <br />public service announcements were used to notifY the public of pending public meetings. <br />A Pathfinder Project website was developed (www.GMUG pathfinder.org) to provide <br />information on the project, public meeting notices, and to make other related instream <br />flow data available for review. <br /> <br />Five public meetings were conducted in local communities adjacent to the GMUG <br />National Forest in the spring of 2002. Prior to the public meetings, almost 1,000 <br />questionnaires were mailed out to water users, special-use permit holders, and other <br />interested parties notifying them of the meeting dates and locations, and asking them to <br />comment on water use issues, concerns, and water-related values on NFS lands. The <br />public meetings were structured to provide information on the Steering Committee's <br />objectives and the Forest Plan Revision process, and to gather public input on the <br />importance of instream flows on NFS lands and their concerns regarding instream flow <br />protection strategies and procedures. The Pathfinder Project website also allowed the <br /> <br />- 3 - <br />