Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />because they are going to have to do similar types of <br />studies there. We felt that we needed a much more <br />analytical method to quantify all these findings. We <br />didn't feel that the analytical approach was <br />sufficient in detail to-for the Board to appropriate <br />instream flows. It is my guess that on the Yampa the <br />Board also stated that we could use the <br />recommendations they have given us to acquire water <br />or water rights that were less than the amount that <br />the Service proposed. So next time one comes along <br />that wants to sell or donate a certain amount of <br />water or water rights to the Board for instream flow <br />purposes for endangered fish the staff could go ahead <br />and acquire those if they were less than the <br />recommended amount which most likely they will be. <br />The basic issue that I guess what we need to discuss <br />and we need some guidance on is about 3 or 4 issues. <br />One how much data do we need, to what detail does <br />this data have to be for the staff to make a <br />reasonable flow appropriation, and 2 what extent do <br />we want to accept the critical data and professional <br />judgment of biologists who supported each stream flow <br />appropriation. As I have said the Service is <br />planning to use this approach on the other streams, <br />we have objected to this approach and the service has <br />agreed to set up a small team that would include <br />Service biologists, , CWCB staff, Tom <br />pitts and a number of other people knowledgeable in <br />instream flow methodology to look at various other <br />processes or methods that may be available that are <br />more analytical than simply a biologist <br />appropriation for a request for appropriation <br />professional judgment. Maybe I need to give you a <br />little bit idea of how the Service has used the <br />approach, and I am going to simplify it very <br /> <br />4 <br />