My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00154 (2)
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00154 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:45:57 PM
Creation date
5/1/2007 10:23:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/13/2007
Description
ISF Section - Notice of 2008 Instream Flow Recommendations and Summary of ISF Workshop
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
212
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 />- 4 - <br /> <br />Recommendation . <br /> <br />In order not to exhaust all of its resources 1n a few controversial streams, staff recommends the <br />Board direct staff to evaluate and prioritize the 32 segments as follows. <br /> <br />1. Resolve the remaining issues on\ Beaver Creek and Willow Creek in Moffat County. <br />Staff is close to resolving outstan~ing issues on Beaver Creek and is hopeful that it can <br />resolve stakeholder concerns oh Willow Creek. Staff intends to bring these <br />recommendations to the Board nollater than at its July 2007 meeting. <br />, <br /> <br />2. Attempt to resolve the issues reg*ding the Jackson County streams that were discussed <br />at the January 2007 Board Meeting. <br /> <br />3. Investigate and scrutinize the recpmmendations in divisions 2 and 5 to identify which <br />streams may develop significant :controversy and require additional staff resources to <br />resolve issues. Staffwill then m6ve the non-controversial streams forward and develop <br />I <br />a plan to address issues on the remaining streams as time and resources allow. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />Continue to work with the reconrlnending entities and stakeholders on those streams in <br />Divisions 5 and 6 that were rec6mmended in previous years. The majority of these <br />streams have a high degree of cpntroversy associated with them and staff may need <br />additional time or more resource~ to successfully identify and resolve issues prior to <br />asking the Board to form its intent to appropriate. These include the streams in Division <br />6 in Rio Blanco County located i~ the Piceance Creek Basin, Little Cottonwood Creek <br />in Moffat County, and the Eagle ~ver in Eagle County. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply protedion. Conservation Planning <br />I <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.