Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ray Wright: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />motion as the Yampa, with the exception of the carveout will be for I <br />100,000 acre feet, modifiable to a total of 400,000 acre feet. And there is <br />one thing..,one additional item I would like to throw out, is thatin...the <br />motion would be for all flows remaining after the carveout reserving th", <br />right to quantify, as we did in the Yampa river, but an additional <br />qualification would be that we would not exceed the flows recommended <br />by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <br /> <br />By doing that...see now, I would.,.I've been real comfortable with all <br />remaining flows all along through the process here, so its just a matter of <br />people's perception of the term. If you put this qualifier on this, why then <br />we are by definition going to go back and quantify recovery flow amounts. <br /> <br />Well, there's a difference...and I think there's a very critical difference that <br />Tom Pitts brought out in the recommendations. I think the <br />recommendations for the Service, especially in the runoff months, were for <br />the available hydrograph. Essentially, they were for all of the flow, ok, <br />less the carveout, and I do not see that...in the fifteen mile reach, there was <br />no specific recommendation for all of the flow, OK. The <br />recommendations are those that are described on page 3 of the December <br />5 memo from Peter Evans to Gene Jencsok. And I want to be very careful <br />that we're not appropriating any more, OK, than what the Service is <br />recommending. Now I would have to say that its awfully hard t(. <br />determine that, based on this table of exceedence and the frequencies. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />So you're saying..,flow remaining available after full utilization of carveout <br />as subsequently modified, or.,and the Board reserves the right to quantify <br />those or more specifically describe those provided that such quantification <br />or more specific description would not exceed the flows recommended by <br />the Service, and the reference is back to a set of number,s'the top line of <br />which is the 25% exceedence number. So you're sayin~ that we would <br />refine the description or the quantification to a point such that we would <br />not be calling for more water than the Service has described as having an <br />exceedence of 25%. <br /> <br />That's...well, yes. <br /> <br />So we might have a different number than 1630, if we had a differenLif <br />it were associated with a different statistical occurrence frequency. <br /> <br />Right. We may have numbers that are less than that, but we wouldn't <br />exceed that, OK, because the Service is not recommending flows that ar~ <br />in the river in this flow recommendation, they're recommending flows they <br />would like to see in the river, and if you read their report, they admit that <br />the flows that they are recommending are more than what has been <br />available in the recent history, meaning the last I guess, 30 years or so. <br /> <br />I <br />