Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o Increase the frequency of stateline peak flows greater <br />than 40,000 cfs from the current level of 8% to 25%. <br /> <br />o The remaining 50% of the years, the stateline peak flow <br />should be greater than 27,000 cfs. <br /> <br />The table below translates these flows into flows in the 15- <br />mile reach: <br /> <br />Freauencv <br />0.25 <br />0.25 <br />0.50 <br /> <br />Stateline Flow (cfs) <br />>40,000 <br />30,000 - 40,000 <br />22,000 - 30,000 <br /> <br />15-mile reach flow (cfs) <br />>23,500 <br />20,500 - 23,500 <br />14,800 - 20,500 <br /> <br />winter (November-Februarv) - Fiaure 6 <br /> <br />o Minimum flows in the range of 1,000 2,000 cfs or the <br />average of historic flows for these months which is <br />approximately 1,470 cfs. <br /> <br />October - Fiaure 7 <br />o Maintain October flows at their current level, or <br /> <br />o Extend the summer period into October; the flow <br />recommendation for October then becomes 700 to 1,200 cfs. <br /> <br />March - Fiaure 6 <br /> <br />o Maintain current March flow regime, or <br /> <br />o Extend the winter flow recommendations to include March. <br /> <br />These flow recommendations are based on the best available <br />information and the professional biologic judgements of the most <br />knowledgeable experts in the field. The Division expects that the <br />flow needs of the fishes will continue to be studied and refined. <br />And we realize that every instream flow recommendation that has <br />ever been approved has had within it a measure of professional <br />judgement, both in terms of the flow amount and the criteria upon <br />which those flow amounts were selected. Basically this is not a <br />new issue for the Board; every in stream flow methodology, from the <br />very simple to the complex, has its shortcomings, its assumption <br />and over-simplifications and most importantly, its measure of <br />professional judgement. What may be adding to the gravity of our <br />present deliberations, however, is that these flow recommendations <br />do not center on trout, but rather on endangered species and the <br />constraints of the federal Endangered species Act. <br /> <br />The Division of wildlife hopes to describe the data and <br />expertise which have gone into the Service's flow recommendations. <br />We would hope that our presentation could be followed by a brief <br /> <br />9 <br />