My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02139
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02139
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:12:46 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:11:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
6/21/1974
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
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.
/
54
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />statements which I think our board found most objectionable in that <br />draft environmental impact statement. I think the answer "none" is <br />reflected in the way the impact statement is now written. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: I think the board ought to be advised that the United states <br />in the Division 6 case has asked for a minimum stream flow in the Yampa <br />of l,OOO cfs at Maybell. A 1,000 cfs for the period May 1 to July 15 <br />of each year as a minimum stream flow for boating purposes. <br /> <br />A study was made which indicates that about 26 percent of the time <br />taking into consideration only presently diverted water rights there <br />would be less than I,OOO second feet down to as low as 200 second feet <br />at certain periods. Kuip can correct me if I am wrong. This does not <br />count conditional decrees. <br /> <br />11r. Kuiper: All of the valid decrees, conditional and absolute, are <br />included in that. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: I thought these were just actual readings at the Maybell <br />gage. <br /> <br />ptr. Kuiper: No, even with the historic actual uses, I believe it was <br />8 percent of the time that the flow at Maybell was less than 1,000 <br />cubic feet per second. So it will be impossible to implement that even <br />under existing uses of water in the stream. <br /> <br />i1r. Moses: This was proposed in a series of negotiations that are going <br />on in an attempt to reach a stipulated settlement of the federal claims <br />cases in Divisions 4, 5 and 6. This is the principal item that has <br />caused us concern. We seem to be pretty close on everything now. I <br />don't know maybe these gentlemen could tell us whether that thousand <br />second feet for the 75-day period is negotiable or not. But that was <br />the figure that we have been advised that the United States claims for <br />minimum flows. <br /> <br />Hr. Jones: We have to by law oppose anything that will be detrimental <br />to the endangered fish in the Yampa. It has nothing to do with wil- <br />derness. And I think, Jim, don't you have a statement regarding that <br />that you can elaborate on? <br /> <br />Mr. Reid: As a part of land management we have a responsibility to <br />maintain wildlife habitat. <br /> <br />As the agency that has to administer Dinosaur. we have a responsibility <br />for protecting the two endangered species that are there and also <br /> <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.