Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Yampa. These studies have demonstrated a natural environment exists in <br />the Yampa. The Yampa river supports populations of Colorado squawfish <br />and humpback chub year round, and provides spawning habitat for <br />Colorado squawfish, razorback sucker, and humpback chub. The Yampa <br />flow regime provides key flows and sediment loads for maintaining key <br />habitat for Colorado squawfish, both nursery and adult habitat, and also the <br />population of razorback in the middle Green River. These studies also <br />show negative correlations of non native species reproductive success with <br />flow. They also show flow ranges that inundate and maintain important <br />spring backwater habitat for adult Colorado squawfish prior to. their <br />downstream spawning migration. I'd like to note that the Yampa river also <br />supports populations of two federal candidate species, the flannelmouth <br />sucker and roundtail chub. The flow recommendations made by the Water <br />Conservation Board staff, including the base flow, and the recovery flow, <br />must be considered together for their biological benefit to the endangered <br />fishes, the native fish community, and the aquatic community that supports <br />them. Rick Anderson and I have reviewed the fish and Wildlife Service <br />flow recommendations for the Yampa, which were based on the estimated <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 research <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 />degree, in that it will assist in the protection of a naturally shaped <br />hydrograph, 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 />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 /> <br />Minutes of December 13, 1995 Special eWeB Meeting <br />