Laserfiche WebLink
To Platte River Project Participants <br />\June 3, 1994 <br />\ Page 3 <br />few years ago. However, no single set of recommendations or <br />the combined set of recommendations provide the ultimate <br />answer as to the flow requirements on the Platte River. The <br />recommendations still leave serious questions open regarding <br />cause and effect relationships and actual flow needs. <br />3. Practically all of <br />recommendations should <br />be monitored over time <br />if the flow related ob <br />encroachment stoppage, <br />achieved. <br />the experts acknowledged that the flow <br />be considered approximations that must <br />to determine validity, and to determine <br />jectives, i.e., wide channel, vegetation <br />expanded fish communities, etc., can be <br />4. The meeting served the purpose of putting the question of <br />flow recommendations in the context of management /technical <br />decisions and identified the need for more information before <br />final decisions are made. This tended to remove the <br />discussion from the negative context of regulatory <br />• requirements. While not explicitly stated, the meeting <br />clearly defined the need for an objective, non - regulatory <br />forum for discussion, testing, and refinement of information <br />and opinions regarding flow recommendations. <br />5. The pulse and peak flow recommendations will increase the <br />"water deficit" calculated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <br />Without a recovery program, this information will simply <br />become the "best available scientific and commercial data" for <br />conducting Section 7 consultations. <br />6. None of the recommendations address the questions of <br />feasibility, water sources, trade offs, costs, or <br />institutional /legal arrangements. These fundamental questions <br />remain for negotiated resolution under the recovery program. <br />(1803 -04- 01;1803 -04-A) <br />