My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11651
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11651
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:18:25 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:05:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.10.B
Description
UCRBRIP Annual Reports
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1999
Author
UCRBRIP
Title
1998 Annual Reports Package (incomplete) Part 2
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />VI. Accomplishment ofFY 98 Tasks and Deliverables ofInitial Findings and Shortcomings: <br /> <br />LOCAL PASSAGE <br /> <br />Methods' The hydraulic equation (stage-discharge relationship) was used to define minimum <br />passage criteria. The minimum passage depth of a riffle is considered to be the maximum body <br />depth of the largest fish in the community. Body depth is defined as the distance from the tip of <br />the extended dorsal fin to the lowest portion of the body cavity. A large Colorado pikeminnow <br />in the Yampa River is 32 inches (80cm) long and weighs about II pounds (2.4 kg) (Interagency <br />Standardized Monitoring Program data) with a body depth of about 9 inches, of which the dorsal <br />fin is about 3 inches. Using this logic, average depth ofriIDes need to be at least 0.75 ft to allow <br />passage. We also used the depth criteria defined by Burdick (1996), who felt that a maximum <br />depth of one foot would satisfy unrestricted movement of adult Colorado pikeminnow. <br /> <br />Resnlts: Body depth of a large adult pikerninnow is about 0.75 ft. The passage criterion, a <br />maximum depth of 1.0 ft in at least one point on a cross section, was achieved on 50% of the <br />riffles surveyed at a flow of III cfs (above Cross Mountain Canyon). The mean flow for the 31 <br />riffles needed to produce a maximum depth (thalweg) of at least 1.0 ft was 153 cfs (Appendix I, <br />TableI-4) <br /> <br />Dis~nssinn: Results from riffle cross sections were emphasized for passage because this habitat <br />type is likely to restrict movement at low flows. To achieve an average depth of O. 75 ft across <br />riffles, flow had to be higher than that determined by curve break analysis. The riffle with the <br />lowest flow that resulted in an average depth of O. 75 ft was 67 'cfs. Eight riffles did not achieve a <br />0.75 average depth at flows of at least 500 cfs. The average flow of the riffles with an average <br />depth of 0.75 ft was 342 cfs. Selection of an average depth criterion is important because a <br />small change in average depth can mean large differences in concomitant flows. The average <br />depth at a flow of 93 cfs was 0.52 ft. The passage criterion used for adult pikeminnow was a <br />thalweg depth of at least I. 0 ft. This was achieved on 50% of the riIDes at a flow of III cfs <br />(upper strata). The mean flow for riffles with a thalweg depth of at least 1.0 ft was 153 cfs. <br /> <br />MIGRATIONAL PASSAGE <br /> <br />M ..thnds' The potential for low flow barriers to postspawning migrant Colorado pikerninnow in <br />the Yarnpa River was evaluated in 1997 by monitoring movement through two potential barriers, <br />Cross Mountain Canyon (RMI 58.8) and the Maybell Diversion (RMI 89.4). Six month <br />transmitters were surgically implanted in five Colorado pikerninnow in the second week of May <br />1997 in the Yarnpa River between Government Bridge (RMl 98.8) and Morgan Gulch (RMI <br />103.7) (Table 4-3). Fish were collected by Colorado Division of Wildlife during'ISMP <br />monitoring and transmitters were implanted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel. <br />Following implantation, two stationary telemetry logging stations were established. One was <br />approximately 0.6 miles above Cross Mountain Canyon and the other directly above the Maybell <br />Diversion. Location of the telemetry station directly at the mouth of the canyon was not possible <br /> <br />CAP-9c-2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.