My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8196
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8196
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 6:50:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8196
Author
Center for Public-Private Sector Cooperation and G. S. o. P. Affairs.
Title
Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
USFW Year
1993.
USFW - Doc Type
Denver.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
(C) possible conflict between Colorado's ability to develop its compact <br />apportionment and the preservation of fish habitat in the 15-mile reach of the <br />Colorado River and the Yampa River; and <br />(D) possible conflict between Colorado's ability to develop its compact <br />apportionment and conversion of Juniper-Cross Mountain rights to instream flow <br />rights? <br />"Sufficient Progress" As Possible Impediment to Protecting Flows. <br />Can flows be protected in timely enough manner to allow planning and work on <br />water projects to go forward? Can recovery goals be sufficiently defined to allow <br />for more timely "sufficient progress" decision making? <br />Lack of Grassroots Constituency Support Within Agencies and <br />Among Public. How can stakeholders build sufficient support among <br />government agency personnel and among affected publics to ensure that RIP <br />performance is effective, efficient, and expeditious? <br />3.2.2.2. Category II ("Work on Next"). <br />Previous CWCB Decisions. How should stakeholders resolve situations in <br />which precedent established in previous decisions (e.g., Blue River case or <br />conditional water rights policies) may create a barrier to protecting flows for fish <br />population recovery? <br />`Physically and Legally Available' Requirement. How should <br />stakeholders and the CWCB address the impact of this requirement or the method <br />of its determination on the protection of instream flows? <br />3-4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.