Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II. APPLICATION OF "ln~mY GAP" FOP-HULA TO UPPER COLORADO <br /> <br />RIVER BASIN PROJECTS? <br /> <br />**1. PRESENT EFFORTS AND THE TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE WOP~ <br />PLANS INDICATE THE PRIl1ARY PROTECTION - RECOVERY <br /> <br />EFFORTS REMAIN FOCUSED ON MAINTE~l}'..NCE OF IN-STREAM <br />TARGET FLOWS. P.AS THE COr-mITTEE BEEN GIVEN THE <br />OBJECTIVE TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE <br />SOLUTIONS? <br /> <br />As noted in the Colorado Water Congress letter of <br />July 25, 1584 to Mr. Frank Dunkle, Special Assistant <br /> <br />to the Regionhl Director, there appears to be an <br />"extreme negative bias regarding non-flow alterna- <br />tives." The Biology Subcommittee "seems to be <br />fixated on minimum flows as the solution." Even the <br /> <br />F1<lS document entitled "Scope & Obj ectives -- Fish & <br />Wildlife Service Upper Colorado River Basin Technical <br />Advisory Study" states, on page 5, that the study <br /> <br />will not directly address the <br />issue of non~flow management <br /> <br />. * <br />opt~ons ... <br />In sum, both the FWS alone and acting in concert with <br />the Coordinating Committee are on a set course to <br />establish minimum stream flow requirements by October 1. <br />Given this predilection and the lack of progress <br /> <br />-9- <br />