My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Colorado Minutes Oct 2006 CBRT
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
Backfile
>
Colorado Minutes Oct 2006 CBRT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:14:35 PM
Creation date
7/10/2007 2:10:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
Colorado
Title
Minutes
Date
10/23/2006
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />10. Consumptive needs breakout report of potential grant requests. <br /> <br />a. Every municipality and water district in the Colorado Basin knows their projected <br />needs assessment; they should send these to John Sikora who will compile them. <br /> <br />b. We need to learn more about the Endangered Species Recovery Program, a <br />requirement that the Eastern and Western slopes together reserve 10,825 acre feet to <br />support endangered fish in the Colorado River. This amounts to just under 15 cfs <br />annually. Tom Pitts, Loveland, gave a presentation to the Gunnison RT about this; he is <br />on the CDM team. <br /> <br />c. We need to learn more about energy development impacts on water: <br /> <br />1. Water consumed or polluted in extracting energy. <br />11. Water consumed by workers moving to the area to extract energy. <br /> <br />d. Grant requests will be prioritized at the next meeting. <br /> <br />11. Non consumptive needs breakout report of potential grant requests. <br /> <br />a. Needs assessment for the entire basin. The group discussed that the Arkansas Basin <br />spreadsheet could be overwhelming with over 4,000 data points to gather. An alternative <br />is to measure seasonal water flows at different locations, and graph flows with and <br />without the exercise of all conditional water rights. Lane Wyatt and Ken Neubecker <br />will bring a proposal for consideration in November. <br /> <br />b. Lurline Curran discussed Grand County's Stream Flow Management Plan, which has <br />languished because consultants are unavailable (in part because of fears that by working <br />for Grand County they will no longer be considered by Denver or Northern). This would <br />cost $10-15,000, and would be an appropriate Task Order under HB 1400. CDM could <br />do this and use it as a model for developing a basin-wide or state-wide needs assessment. <br />Lurline will send the Phase 1 Stream Flow Management Plan to Sue Morea for her <br />review. <br /> <br />c. Mark Fuller discussed that the Roaring Fork Water Shed Plan needs $25,000 to complete <br />Phase 1, and $50,000 to complete Phase 2. <br /> <br />d. Kirk Klancke mentioned that $200,000 is needed for a sediment collection basin at the <br />base of Berthoud Pass. <br /> <br />e. The group agreed to join Yampa White roundtable in their HB 1400 Task Order request <br />that CDM project energy development impacts on water supply and quality. <br /> <br />L\CWCB Imaging\Caleb\Minutes\Colorado\2006\Colorado Minutes Oct 2006 CBRTdoc <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.