Laserfiche WebLink
IHA and NHD <br />Brian Richter (IHA designer) noted the value in undertaking abasin-wide screening of habitat <br />and then intersecting this information with IHA analyses. He suggested that we could create a <br />colored map, segment by segment, showing different levels of IHA, and superimposing <br />biological and recreational priorities. We will use the critical stream reach determinations. In <br />terms of flow prescriptions, we discussed the "deep" vs. "shallow" approach -where "deep" <br />reflects issue-specific needs/reaches, and "shallow" gets more at the planning level, where even <br />ballpark estimates would be useful. Each of these approaches would be different. He felt that we <br />could undertake a simple round of first approximations ("shallow"), and then could expand our <br />analyses to deeper levels as needed, perhaps in areas identified as higher priority with the <br />"shallow" approach. <br />Literature: <br />Campbell, S.G., Flug, M., & R.B. Hanna. 2002. Hydrologic Analysis for River Ecosystem <br />Management. Hydrology Days. The IHA software was incorporated into the Environmental <br />Resources Analysis System (ERAS}, which is a spreadsheet-based computer package. The <br />ERAS was developed to analyze the Green & Yampa Rivers in the Upper Colorado River Basin. <br />"ERAS provide access to historic data sets, scientific information, statistical analysis, model <br />outputs, and comparative methods." <br />Flug, M., S.G. Campbell & R.B. Hanna. 2002. Complexities of Ecosystem and River <br />Management Decisions. Second Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference. Las <br />Vegas, Nevada, July 28-Aug 1, 2002. The Environmental Resources Analysis System (ERAS) <br />incorporates some results from IHA analysis. The ERAS is a prototype decision support system <br />(DSS) developed for the Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program. The IHA was used <br />to analyze sites on the Green River (Utah) on a site on the Yampa River (Colorado). <br />Instream Flow Council. 2002. Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship. Publ., <br />Instream Flow Council. This resource book, by the Instream Flow Council, reviews flow <br />assessment tools available to scientists, water managers and practitioners. The IHA and RVA are <br />summarized and reviewed. Included in the discussion are the objectives, scale of application, <br />ease of use, limitations, assumptions, strengths, and the Council's critical opinion. <br />Olden, J.D. and N.L. Poff. 2003. Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for <br />characterizing stream flow regimes. River Research and Applications 19:101-121. <br />Richter, B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D.P. Braun 1996. "A Method for Assessing <br />Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems". Conservation Biology 10:1163-1174. <br />Richter, B.D, J.V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, and D.P. Braun, "How Much Water Does a River <br />Need?" Freshwater Biology 37, 231-249. <br />Strange, E. 1998. Flow Regime Limitations of Colorado Trout Populations: Perspectives for <br />Watershed Management. Tout Unli»aiteu'report. Water development impacts on trout fisheries <br />were assessed using the IHA and RVA to evaluate pre- and post- development flow conditions. <br />The study concluded that flow regime alterations in many of the Colorado's rivers threaten the <br />R <br />