My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10952
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10952
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:15:23 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:37:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.30.B
Description
UCRBRIP Instream Flows
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1990
Author
UCRBRIP
Title
Protection of Instream Flows for Endangered Colorado River Fishes in Colorado
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />additional water was made available to the fishes last <br />summer. <br /> <br />h. Similar lease agreements may be entered into <br />between the Department of the Interior and the State of <br />Colorado to protectinstream flow releases from Flaming <br />Gorge and Blue Mesa Reservoirs after the conclusion of <br />section 7 consultation on those projects. <br /> <br />III. Future Water Protection Activities. <br />\q~q .. . <br />A. At the August~ Implementatlon Commlttee Meetlng, <br />concern was expressed by all parties as to the slow pace of <br />protecting instream flows for the endangered fishes. This <br />was creating a problem for water developers who were going <br />through section 7 consultation and had thought that they <br />could rely upon the Program to offset all the depletion <br />impacts of their projects as long as they contributed to <br />funding the Program. Since the Program had not made <br />sufficient progress in protecting the instream flows before <br />these projects needed to receive biological opinions, the FWS <br />had determined that such projects had to make provisions for <br />protection of flows until the Program was successful in <br />protecting those flows. (This was agreed to by the River <br />District as described in the Muddy Creek biological opinion.) <br /> <br />B. The Implementation Committee requested that a water <br />acquisition subcommittee be formed to develop a plan for the <br />future water protection activities. The status report and <br />recommendations were prepared by a subcommittee which <br />included representatives of all the affected interests. The <br />report and its recommendations were approved by the <br />Implementation Committee at its February 21, 1990, meeting. <br /> <br />C. The report sets out the strategy for protection of <br />instream flows in the Yampa River, the Little Snake River, <br />the 15-mile reach, the White River, and acquisition of water <br />rights through the Farm Foreclosure Program. <br /> <br />D. The Plan provides that the FWS should generate a work <br />plan for the White River by May 1, 1990, since no acquisition <br />activities have commenced relating to protection of flows in <br />the White River. It also requests that the FWS provide a <br />status report on the 404 permit for the White River Dam which <br />could impounded waters in the reach that the FWS had <br />recommended be protected. The status report has been sent by <br />the FWS to all the parties, and it states that the Corps of <br />Engineers' 404 permit for the White River Dam, Utah has <br />expired, but the BLM right-Of-way permit is still in <br />existepce. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.