My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Organizing for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Draft
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
Organizing for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Draft
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:36:29 PM
Creation date
5/28/2009 1:12:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.100
Description
Adaptive Management Workgroup (PRRIP)
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Author
David M. Freeman, Ph.D,, Annie Epperson and Troy Lepper
Title
Organizing for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Draft
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
192
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
toward construction of a"reasonable and prudent" alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service's <br />objectives centered around using enhanced river flows to recover presently listed species, to <br />prevent future listings of additional species, and to provide sufficient habitat for conservation of <br />the natural biological ecosystem. A team of people representing the Fish and Wildlife Service and <br />the National Biological Survey had created a table of target flows that cumulated into the 417,000 <br />acre foot estimate based on an assumption that inadequate stream flows, and most especially the <br />lack of peak and pulse flows were the most important limiting factors in the Platte River Basin <br />ecosystem. Therefore, quantities o.f water must be enhanced by an annual average of 417,000 acre <br />feet. <br />Re-organized water quantiti.es would be required to recover critical habitat components <br />including channel roosting habitat, wet meadow habitat, sandbar nesting habitat, fishery habitat, <br />and foraging habitat. All these coniponents were seen as essential for recovery of all federally <br />listed species and over 300 migratory bird species in the Central Flyway. The Fish and Wildlife <br />Service held that flow conditions on the Platte River affected the habitat components directly. Re- <br />regulated flows would recover damaged habitat, prevent the need for listing additional species, <br />and provide for conservation of the natural biotic ecosystem components. <br />The FWS identified pulse fllows as the highest priority. They were viewed as essential to <br />maintain and enhance the physical structure of wide, open, unvegetated and braided channels, to <br />supply soil moisture and pooled water during the growing season for plants and animals lower in <br />the food chain in meadow grasslan3s, to rehabilitate and sustain biologic webs in main and side <br />channels as nursery habitats for fisll, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms, and to facilitate <br />nutrient cycling in floodplains. Pulse flows also raise groundwater levels in wetlands adj acent to <br />rivers and bring organisms close to the soil surface for predation by migratory birds and other <br />species. Pulse flows contribute to the break-up of winter ice and thereby induce the scouring of <br />vegetation off sandbars, which is especially important in years of low flow. Except for the driest <br />of years, at ieast 50% of the pulse flows should occur during May 20-June 20 and should emulate <br />traditional flow patterns of 10 days ascending, 5 days cresting, and 12 days descending (LJ.S. Fish <br />& Wildlife Service 1997). <br />To accomplish all this, FWS biologists an.d hydrologists called for an average annual <br />increase of flow volume at Grand Island, Nebraska, in the amount of 417,000 acre-feet-this to add <br />to the existing flow pattern that had emerged over the twentieth century. Target volumes were <br />categorized by dry years, normal years, and wet years. Decisions for what kind of year managers <br />would be facing were expected to be based on esi:imated gross water supply, plus estimates of <br />groundwater and precipitation, and snowpack in the entire basin (Bowman 1994). The quantity of <br />417,000 acre-feet of water was cali.brated using actual flow patterns from 1943-1994. Target <br />flows were calculated by looking at days when flows were short of the desirable standard as <br />defined by the FWS, the differences between the observed and desirable were averaged, and then <br />cumulated into the over-all target flow value. <br />Water users did not agree with the numbers presented by the Fish and Wildlife Service's <br />biological opinion. They believed that 417,000 a.cre-feet of water for habitat recovery was not <br />based on logic, history, or even river capacity. In the often heated discussion of target flows, even <br />basic facts about the physical structure of the river could not be agreed upon, especially the most <br />59
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.