BOARD00088 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 11/14/2006
• Description: WSP Section and ISF Section - Arkansas River ISF Appropriation
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Hearings

.

The CDOW has evaluated the 100 cfs year-round instream flow recommendation, based on their
data collection efforts (see Table 1 and Appendix A). The modeling results from this survey
effort are within the confidence interval produced by the R2CROSS model.

Biological and Field Survey Data
As reported in the letter from CDOW to the CWCB (attached), "This reach of the Arkansas
River is classified as a large river (over 100 feet wide) and fishery surveys indicate the stream
environment of this reach of the Arkansas River supports Black bullhead (/eta/urus me/as),
Central Stoneroller (Campostoma anoma/um), Channel catfish (/eta/urus punctatus), Common
Carp (Cyprinus carpio), Fathead minnow (Pimepha/es prome/as), Flathead chub (Hybopsis
gracilis), Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), Green sunfish (Lepomis cyane/lus),
Largemouth Bass (Micropterus sa/moides), Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), Longnose
sucker (Catostomus catostomus), Orangespotted sunfish (Lepomis humi/is), Plains killifish
(Fundu/us zebrinus), Red Shiner (Cyprine/la /utrensis), Sand shiner (Notropis stramineus),
Saugeye (Stizostedion vitreum x S. canadense), Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), White crappie
(Pomoxis annu/aris), White sucker (Catostomus commersoni), Wiper (Morone saxatilis x M.
chrysops), Rainbow trout (Sa/mo gairdneri) and Brown trout (Salmo trutta).

.

Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabi/is) historically inhabited this reach of the Arkansas
River but have been absent from recent fishery surveys. Flathead chub (P/atygobio graci/us) and
Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabi/is) have been identified by the DOW and several
other state and federal agencies as "species of greatest conservation need". DOW is involved in
developing Conservation and Management Plans for these species. The intention of these plans
is to increase populations and distributions of identified species, thereby assisting in the long-
term persistence of each species. The success of such plans could potentially curtail the need for
federal listing of these species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These species are not
currently federally listed" (See CDOW Fish Survey in Appendix B).

Field Survey Data

CDOW staff used the R2CROSS methodology to evaluate the recommendation and determine if
it would preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree. The R2CROSS method
requires that stream discharge and channel profile data be collected in a rime stream habitat type.
Rimes are most easily visualized, as the stream habitat types that would dry up first should
streamflow cease. This type of hydraulic data collection consists of setting up a transect,
surveying the stream channel geometry, and measuring the stream discharge. Appendix B
contains copies of field data collected for this proposed segment.

.

Biological Flow Recommendation

The CWCB staff relied upon the biological expertise of the CDOW to interpret output from the
R2CROSS data collected to evaluate the instream flow recommendation. Three instream flow
hydraulic parameters, average depth, percent wetted perimeter, and average velocity were used
to evaluate the instream flow recommendation. The CDOW has determined that maintaining
these three hydraulic parameters at adequate levels across rime habitat types, aquatic habitat in
pools and runs will also be maintained for most life stages of fish and aquatic invertebrates
(Nehring 1979; Espegren 1996).

7