Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000l?1 <br /> <br />The issue of instantaneous peak flows remains our primary concern with the current set of <br />Gunnison and Colorado River flow recommendations. However, issues raised in the minority <br />report are still relevant and are discussed briefly below. <br /> <br />Water Availability <br /> <br />The minority raised a concern that the flow recommendations may not be feasible given <br />water availability in the basin. We agree that the flow recommendations should concentrate on <br />requirements of the endangered fish species and therefore should be somewhat insulated from <br />considerations of implementation feasibility. However, a consideration of basin yield and other <br />water uses will make implementation easier, more consistent, and perhaps more effective in <br />achieving objectives. Water availability is not likely an issue with the Pitlick recommendations <br />for channel maintenance, because he calls for meeting long-term average flow durations that <br />occurred historically. Unlike the current set of recommendations from the Service, he did not <br />specify the hydrologic categories in which certain durations should occur and implicitly allows <br />for the greater than half-bankfull and bankfull durations to occur in wetter years. Water <br />availability is a concern for the current set of recommendations for average dry, average wet and <br />moderately wet years. <br /> <br />One of the authors of the Green River flow recommendations was a hydrologist from <br />Reclamation. His purpose, in part, was to verify that the Upper Green River was capable of <br />providing the water that was being recommended. For the Gunnison River flow <br />recommendations, there was no prior analysis of whether the flow recommendations were <br />feasible given the hydrology of the Gunnison River. Various agencies have expressed concerns <br />that there is insufficient water available in the Gunnison River to consistently meet the flow <br />recommendations as they are currently drafted. If the flow recommendations cannot be <br />realistically met using available water, it seems that further examination of the scientific bases <br />for the flow recommendations would be needed. <br /> <br />Life Stages and Species Recovery <br /> <br />The minority also felt that it was important for the Service to clearly identify the goals of <br />the flow recommendations in terms of which species and which life stages are being targeted by <br />particular aspects of the recommendations. This was done for the Green River flow <br />recommendations, by providing a table (Table 5.1) and by providing supporting rationale in the <br />text. The table identified the known and potential (with flow recommendations) occurrence of <br />life stages of the endangered fishes for specific reaches of the Green River. This helps avoid <br />situations where flow recommendations are being made to target a particular life stage in a <br />particular reach or reaches where the recommendations would not be applicable or feasible. For <br />example, it would be of no use to make a recommendation to provide floodplain habitat as <br />nursery areas for razorback sucker larvae in a portion of the river upstream of known or potential <br />spawning areas or so close to spawning areas that the larvae would not be at an appropriate age to <br />