|
<br />tz\L--
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />virgin flow model process, and we worked with the Water Conservation
<br />Board staff in developing these flow recommendations at multiple
<br />meetings. Rick and I assessed these recommendations from both a
<br />technical aspect of the methodology of the modeling approach, and also for
<br />their biological credibility. It is my opinion, based on my experience,
<br />which includes review of existing reports and data, my own researcl:
<br />studies, and consultation with Rick Anderson, who has considerable
<br />instream flow methodology expertise, that the Board's motion for instream
<br />flows on the Yampa will protect the natural environment to a reasonable
<br />dcc\:ee, in that it will assist in the protection of a naturally shaped
<br />hydro graph, which supports the life history processes of these endangered
<br />fishes, and the associated native fish community, and the maintenance of
<br />channel morphology and other habitat characteristics that are important to
<br />the endangered fishes. As was indicated, this assumes that the
<br />development carveout will be distributed over time to maintain a naturally
<br />shaped hydro graph. Based on information, studies, and data available to
<br />us, and reviewed by us at this time, these instream flow rights reasonably
<br />protect the natural environment, that we consider them to be interim in
<br />nature, and subject to refinement as may be appropriate as more studies
<br />and data become available.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />David Harrison:
<br />
<br />That's pretty detailed. More than I expected. Questions? Any questions
<br />or comments? We're rapidly running out of time. Is there anything else
<br />that we need to talk about before we're ready for vote on the motion? Is
<br />there any burning comment that anybody in the audience thinks we have
<br />to have that we do not already have before us before we act on the
<br />motion? If not, I'll call the question. All in favor of the motion, indicate
<br />by saying "Aye".
<br />
<br />All:
<br />
<br />Aye.
<br />
<br />....
<br />
<br />~~. ,on',. "" -. ^'
<br />....1: ~;.;;,,~.~._;.:,...A :,:" ...,.....~....
<br />
<br />David Harrison: Opposed? Motion carries.'" Are we prepared to do something similar on
<br />
<br />.. . ", the Colorado?
<br />"~ .\:.',,-;. ;~::., .' ,:" ..'.-:..... ~..,:.,-: ~,-~ ":":-:':::2"_.':.:: ;<.:"':-:~"-.;~'~:~_':.' '-.'_ ',J ,... : '1
<br />
<br />Patricia ' Wells:
<br />
<br />Maybe Eric should make this motion. We can take all the changes to all
<br />the...why don't we just say what's different?
<br />
<br />Eric Kuhn:
<br />
<br />All right, on the Colorado, the motion will be similar to the Yampa, but
<br />there will be some differences. So, the motion will be for an instream
<br />flow right in what we refer to the Fifteen Mile Reach, which is the
<br />confluence of the Colorado and the Gunnison river up to the Grand Valley
<br />Irrigation Company ~ or the Grand Valley Irrigation
<br />Company Diversion Dam. For the base flow, the motion will be for what
<br />is considered the DOW/staff recommendation for all the months with the
<br />exception of September. For the month of Se;,tember, it wiIl be for 68~'
<br />cfs as opposed to 810. In the recovery right, again, it will be the same
<br />
<br />I
<br />
|