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 />Fortification. I want to comment on these endangered species. Any <br />time that they run out of squaw fish and suckers down there, I have a <br />million of them out my way. I will give them to them any day, glad <br />to get rid of them. Don't let that worry you one bit. We have plenty <br />of squaw fish and suckers. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: That is real assuring, John. I appreciate that. <br />Si Berthelson, did you have a question? <br /> <br />11r. Berthelson: I am concerned about their stand on the quality of <br />the water. I assume from their statement that the Park Service is <br />primarily concerned about the quantity of the water. J would like to <br />know what the position is going to be on quality. The inference from <br />the statement that was presented here in Craig was that the state of <br />Colorado hasn't done very much on the water quality studies on the <br />Yampa. <br /> <br />Is your revised statement public information? Are you going to have <br />more hearings to keep the people advised? <br /> <br />Hr. Reid: We are hopeful that the study that is being undertaken now <br />by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and wildlife to determine the mini- <br />mum requirements, habitat requirements, will be completed soon and <br />answer some questions about water quality. <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Eyck: I think, Si, that one of the problems may very well be <br />that we might with the Lower Yampa facility release water that is too <br />pure for these fish. I think that is the problem that they are looking <br />at. If the Juniper Reservoir comes into being and the release frdm it <br />is colder and clear, we may be improving the quality but degrading the <br />environment for these particular fish species. If the Park Service <br />now takes the position that it will not oppose any proposed develop- <br />ment at the outset but will review everything on the facts presented, <br />then we can't agrue very much. If the Service intends to oppose every- <br />thing before the facts are known, we have a problem there. <br /> <br />~tr. Stapleton: John Fetcher, have you had an answer to your question? <br /> <br />Mr. Fetcher: Well, partially. I think that we would like to see the <br />new revised document which I gather will be public information but it <br />isn't available yet. <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Evck: The final impact statement will have to be a public <br />documeht whenever they get it finalized. <br /> <br />-17- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.