My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01934
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD01934
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:08:59 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:05:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/25/2002
Description
CWCB Director's Report
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.
/
83
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 />The group then collectively tried to identify what modifications in the current classification and standards <br />system to reflect these features: <br /> <br />. More protective classifications and standards needed for effluent dominated streams, <br />. Standards should recognize differences in flow (time, segment) <br />. Standards should recognize hydrologic modifications: <br />o Water management may preclude certain uses as some times; <br />o Water management may create other uses, <br />. System needs flexibility to respond to natural disasters. <br />. System should recognize source water variability. <br />. System should recognize variability in water bodies, <br />. System should recognize effluent dependence <br />o Nutrients are necessary for the habitat <br />. Refined aquatic life uses: <br />o Is the aquatic life the same as that used in criteria development or has it evolved and adapted <br />to chemical and physical habitat? <br />. Net environmental benefit: loss of discharge=>loss of aquatic ecosystem, <br />. Modified system should not lose the concept of future potential uses, <br />. System should recognize that diversions are sometimes 100% consumptive. <br />· Federal actions concerning the ESA must connect with CW A and standards setting process III <br />Colorado. <br />. Should antidegradation apply to secondary drinking water standards? <br />. Should antidegradation apply to effluent dependent and dominated streams? <br />. Should anti degradation apply to streams dominated by ag return flows? <br />. Should reuse require different standards for groundwater recharge? <br />. System should recognize that operation of constructed water conveyances have uses that should be <br />protected, <br /> <br />Al!ricuIture Use <br /> <br />There was a discussion of the two agriculture uses: (1) crop irrigation; and (2) livestock watering. It was <br />suggested that a discussion of the agriculture uses might be more meaningful if someone from the CSU <br />Extension Service provided a short presentation on water quality issues for agriculture, Arrangements will be <br />made for such a presentation at the Group's November meeting if possible. <br /> <br />The group submitted thoughts on the need, or lack thereof, for refined agricultural uses. See the attached <br />sunJrnary of Post-It Comments. <br /> <br />Drinkinl! Water Supolv Use <br /> <br />The Advisory Group discussed the existing drinking water supply use and various issues raised during recent <br />Water Quality Control Commission hearings. Comments were collected, See the attached summary of Post-It <br />Comments, <br /> <br />46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.