My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00089
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00089
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:41:38 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:16:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1980
Title
Upper Colorado Resource Study: Colorado and Utah - Concluding Report May 1980
CWCB Section
Water Conservation & Drought Planning
Author
R. Keith Higginson, Commissioner
Description
Study to determine expected increases of water needs for energy-related developments along White and Yampa Rivers
Publications - Doc Type
Tech Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
165
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 />CHAPTER III <br /> <br />PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT <br /> <br />that time. The report was made available to the public and distributed <br />to MOP team members, Federal and State agencies, newspapers, and con- <br />cerned people both inside and outside the area. <br /> <br />What was to be the final meeting of the Yellow Jacket Project MOP <br />team was held in Meeker, June 3, 1976, with about 40 people in attend- <br />ance. The Progress Report was reviewed and comments concerning it were <br />received. Reports were presented by the Fish and Wildlife and Plan Form- <br />ulation Sub teams and Bureau of Reclamation technical specialists. <br /> <br />Before the meeting adjourned, the team leader explained that the <br />project was to become a unit of the larger, more comprehensive Upper <br />Colorado Resource Study. The purposes of the Resource Study and its <br />geographical limits were explained. It was pointed out that the Colo- <br />rado Water Conservation Board had requested that the Yellow Jacket Pro- <br />ject team continue as the basic planning group for the Resource Study <br />and that people from the other areas be added to it. <br /> <br />Upper Colorado Resource Study Team Planning <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />On February 15, 1977, a public meeting was held in Meeker to organ- <br />ize a planning team for the Upper Colorado Resource Study. Over 60 <br />people were present including many of those who had been active in the <br />Yellow Jacket Project planning, as well as Ute Indian tribal leaders <br />from Duchesne, Utah, and business, industrial, and community leaders <br />from outside the Yellow Jacket area. The Resource Study was explained <br />and the purpose, duties, and organization of the team were present~d. A <br />brochure outlining the presentation was distributed and individuals were <br />asked to indicate their fields of interest and willingness to partici- <br />pate in the planning effort. <br /> <br />A new team was organized, composed of those who indicated an <br />interest in the study in addition to the Bureau specialists assigned to <br />the study. Like the Yellow Jacket team, the UCRS team consisted of a <br />team leader, a reports writer and seven subteams. The subteams, however, <br />were somewhat different, reflecting a new emphasis of study. These sub- <br />teams were water resources, industry and power, municipal, agriculture <br />and land use, fish and wildlife, recreation, and social and economics. <br />A separate advisory unit was also part of the organization. While the <br />team met twice, the sub teams did not become as active as they had for <br />Yellow Jacket and permanent chairmen were never appointed. The organiza- <br />tional structure and membership are presented in the appendix. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The UCRS team met for the first time in Rangely, June 2, 1977, with <br />28 people present. The resources and needs of the area were assessed <br />and available data were reviewed for adequacy. Emphasis was placed on <br />the western portion of the study area. The future of oil shale, coal, <br />petroleum, and related mineral industries was discussed in relation to <br /> <br />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.