Laserfiche WebLink
<br />u <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />approximately from Craig Downstream to the <br />Colorado-Utah Stateline. Both of these studies were <br />reviewed by the staff and presented to the Board that <br />the January, 1990 Board meeting. The Board's <br />conclusion from our presentation was that the flow <br />recommendations and the methodology that the Service <br />has used for the 15 mile reach were acceptable to the <br />Board and the staff was to conduct a water <br />availability study that would determine how much <br />water was available for appropriation for <br />instream flow State statutes. We're conducting the <br />water availability study now. On the Yampa River the <br />Board did not agree that the data that the Fish and <br />wildlife Service has provided is sufficient for <br />making this appropriation under this statute. The <br />reason the Board took different actions on these two <br />recommendations was that basically the 15 mile reach, <br />the Fish and Wildlife Service used a model, they <br />called it a physical habitat simulation model, which <br />related various flow rates to various amounts of <br />habitat and the staff would evaluate the rate of <br />flow, the amount of habitat and how those two <br />related, how much flow would be appropriate for the <br />fish in that reach. On the Yampa River the Fish and <br />wildlife Service used a completely different <br />methodology. They basically used method <br />while they studied the river looked at the flows, <br />looked at the fish-number of fish, location of the <br />fish, how they behaved and was <br />and based on biological information and the personal <br />judgment of the biologist, they concluded that <br />certain amounts of flow was necessary. Amount of <br />flow-let me back up a minute-the Service also <br />concluded that the Yampa River was an extremely <br />important stream for the endangered fish, squawfish, <br /> <br />2 <br />