Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~' <br /> <br />(3) <br /> <br />Biological flow recommendation . The Executive <br />Summary of the staff recommendation noles that the initial <br />biological winter flow recommendation is one "designed to <br />address the unique biological requirements of each stream <br />without regard to water availability" (pp. 3-4) is 1.4 cfs. <br />However, the Execul1ve Summary then notes that the <br />biologic winter recommendation for North Fork Escalante <br />Creek was then "reduced to reflect actual water availabilily" <br />(p.4). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />This reduction of the winter flow recommendation for <br />North Fork Escalante Creek is arbitrary, capricious, and <br />unsupported by the facts. <br /> <br />b. WRA will rely upon Board staff reports and memos about the subject <br />recommendatIOns, including all attachments and appendices, and any olher <br />public information, including but not limited to, stream gage records and <br />reports from other slate or federal agencies. <br /> <br />c. WRA reserves the right to Identify additional contested facls and issues, <br />and additional data and documents upon which it may rely as new <br />information becomes available. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted this 26th day of June, 2006 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />t~ )ft~ <br /> <br />BariMillcr, Attorney Registration Number 27911 <br /> <br />ATTORNEY FOR WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />WRA Notice to Contest ISF appropriation for North Fork Escalante Creek <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />