Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />humpback chub and so on, all of them basically. <br />Based on their studies they concluded that <br />essentially all the historical flow should be <br />appropriated for endangered fish. Again as I said <br />earlier, this decision was based on <br />biological judgment and professional judgment of <br />biologists. We at that time did not feel that that <br />was really the way to go. There are a number of <br />concerns with that. Basically one was that we found <br />under the statutory provisions of the instream flow <br />statute the methodology that they used did not give <br />us the handle on the minimum amount of water required <br />to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable <br />degree, which is what the statute states. The other <br />concern was that we would not be able to tell, based <br />on their methodology, what would happen to the fish <br />if we appropriated less than tat amount. Essentially <br />what the Service has done in that case is to say we <br />need all the water in this stream and that is what we <br />want the Board to appropriate for instream flow uses. <br />Again as I say the Board rejected that approach at <br />that time and asked that the Fish and Wildlife <br />Service continue their studies and those are called <br />Phase II studies on the Yampa River and come up with <br />a more analytical, I shouldn't necessarily say <br />scientific approach to the flow <br />quantifications in the Yampa River. The reason that <br />I am here is because basically the Fish and Wildlife <br />Service wants to use this moved to <br />the Yampa Basin to quantify lower requirements in the <br />other stream segments. These would include the rest <br />of the year in the 15 mile reach, the mainstem of the <br />Colorado, downstream from the 15 mile reach through <br />Stateline, Gunnison River, White River, the Dolores, <br />and of course the San Juan River probably as well <br /> <br />3 <br />