My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01372
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01372
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:01:08 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:54:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/17/1976
Description
Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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 />MR. FETCHER: One million. <br /> <br />MR. BENTON: John, is the Bureau saying that they will approve this <br />small project deal after this board has approved the project or after <br />the legislature has actually appropriated the money? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: <br />Investment's <br />located? <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: It's at the headwaters of the Yampa, so it is above the <br />Lake Catamount. <br /> <br />After the legislature has appropriated the money. <br /> <br />Mr. Fetcher, with relation to the Pleasant Valley <br />reservoir on the river, where is the Yamcolo project <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: What would the ,di~tance be? <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: Twenty-five miles, approximately. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: John, I forgot what you said the last time, 'but would . <br />you comment on the storage situation and also whether you have gotten <br />any opposition on building the dam at all? <br /> <br />MR. FE,TCHER: To answer your first question: .the decree for the Yamcolo <br />Reservoir is held by the Colorado River District. To answer your <br />second question: we held two public meetings, one in Steamboat and one <br />in Yampa and there was no opposition to the project. Thirdly, our <br />district has proceeded with an environmental analysis, which the Forest <br />Service requires, because the location of the reservoir is on Forest <br />property. And that analysis has been completed. It's in the hands of <br />the Forest Service and we're waiting for them to make their recommenda- <br />tions based on that report. So the project is ready to go, if it could <br />be funded. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: You don't feel there is any p:roblem with that environmental <br />impact statement at all? <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: No, we haven't even..heard from the Division of Wildlife <br />about it adversely. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br />MR. ROBBINS: You indicated it was an environmental assessment. Is <br />that prior to an EIS? <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: There, is some probability that we. will not require a full <br />blown EIS for this project. There is already an example of one project <br />near Boulder, the enlargement of a certain reservoir above Boulder, which <br />did not require a full blown EIS. If we do not require a full EIS - <br />there are two terms. One is an Environmental Analysis Report or an <br />Environmental Impact Statement. If we do not require the full blown <br />statement, we could advance the project by probably one year. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: When were the public hearings on this held? <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: They were held last December. <br /> <br />-23- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.