Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />much but basically what Services biologists have done <br />is over the years they have collected data on number <br />of fish, fish movement and they have correlated that <br />to various goals and at various times of the year and <br />they have found that at certain time of the year and <br />through certain years, for instance 1987, on 18 mile <br />reach there were fish in that reach of the river <br />found than in other years when the water was lower so <br />doing some statistical manipulations of number of <br />fish found versus they came up with the <br />conclusion that 1987 was a very good year for the <br />fish therefore that is the amount of water we need <br />and it's a little more complicated than that but <br />basically that's the that they have used <br />and as I say we felt this was not adequate for the <br />statutes. We recognize that this is a very difficult <br />process for the Service, the streams are very <br />complicated, the number of fish that we find-the <br />Service finds in the streams, populations are very <br />small, not a whole is known about them and the purely <br />analytical approach may not be available for us. <br />may have worked reasonably well in the 15 <br />mile reach but the other streams it may <br />not be applicable. We're not fully convinced on that <br />and that's why we have established this small team. <br />But basically we would like to see something that is <br />a little more precise than biological opinion and <br />professional judgment. The biologist feel that this <br />method they are using at present is the best that is <br />available scientifically using all the scientific <br />knowledge in the stream that they have <br />collected over the years and they feel that they can <br />defend it in water court if we have to defend <br />instream flow appropriation. The staff feels that we <br />need to be convinced and the water users need to be <br /> <br />5 <br />