Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />On 15 May 97, Eric Bergersen and I made a site visit at Elkhead Reservoir by boat to identify key <br />model parameters. A level and staff were used to identify approximate areas of inundation should the dam on <br />Elkhead Reservoir be modified. Ray Tenney, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Glenwood <br />Springs, accompanied us in the afternoon to answer questions about the proposed reservoir enlargement and <br />resulting reservoir operations. <br />The first step in calculating the potential costs of diking floodplain ponds in accordance with the <br />provisions of the Procedures was to identify which ponds lied in which portions of the floodplain. This was <br />accomplished using areal photographs, conventional and infrared, taken by USFWS during runoff in 1995. <br />These photos were available for the Colorado River from Palisade to Loma and for the Gunnison River from <br />its Colorado River confluence upstream to Delta The ponds in the photos were identified on floodplain maps <br />designating the 50 year and 100 year floodplains (CWCB 1995a, 1995b) which included a trace of the 10 <br />year floodplain approximated by personnel of the USFWS, Denver, Colorado. Determinations of locations of <br />individual ponds in the floodplain were made by H. Maddux, USFWS, Grand Junction, and myself. <br />Individual ponds were then referenced to the floodplain pond description list developed by Mitchell (1995). <br />Calculations were made to estimate the size of the pond resource that potentially would require <br />diking, in accordance with the Procedures (Appendix A) to accommodate stocking of selected warmwater fish <br />species in the 50 year floodplain of the Colorado River from Palisade to Loma. The Gunnison River <br />floodplain pond resource was not similarly analyzed due to incompleteness of available data These <br />calculations were used to estimate the potential cost of diking this pond resource for both public and private <br />ponds using dike dimensions and cost estimates prepared by Bill Elmblad (Appendix E). To get a rough <br />estimate of the lengths of dikes required, the known pond areas were used to derive the circumference df a <br />circle of the same area and the circumference was multiplied by an estimated shoreline development factor to <br />approximate shoreline length. An average dike height of four feet was used to calculate cost of fill and an <br />assumption was made that one-half of the dike, that portion adjacent to or facing the river's flow, would have <br />to be rip-rapped. <br />RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <br />Policies and Agreements Pertaining to CDOW's Endangered Fish Involvement <br />Basic information was provided to the public to help them understand which policies and their key <br />provisions linked CROW to the management and recovery of non-sport native fishes. This information is <br />summarized below: <br />Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Amended 1982): <br />Applies to fishery management in western Colorado due to the presence of the four endangered fish <br />species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Based on the listing dates for the species by the ESA <br />(Colorado squawfish - 1967, humpback chub - 1967, bonytail - 1980, and razorback sucker -1991), <br />concern remains about the stability and continued existence of these fishes. Furthermore, the <br />roundtail chub And flannelmouth sucker, species formerly believed to be widespread and abundant <br />are now candidate species being considered for listing under ESA. Purpose is to provide a means <br />whereby the ecosystems upon which T & E species depend may be conserved and to provide a <br />program for the conservation of T & E species. All Federal departments and agencies shall seek to <br />conserve T & E species and shall utilize their authorities to accomplish the purposes of this Act.