My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8208
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8208
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 10:21:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8208
Author
Osmundson, D. B., P. Nelson, K. Fenton and D. W. Ryden.
Title
Relationships Between Flow and Rare fish Habitat in the '15-Mile Reach' of the Upper Colorado River.
USFW Year
1995.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
233
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br />Introduction <br />This report presents the results of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) habitat evaluation study <br />for a 15-mile segment of the Colorado River. Utilizing new information provided here as well as <br />that collected by other researchers, recommendations for mi tream flows provided in earlier FWS <br />documents is updated and refined. The river segment in question, hereafter referred to as the ' 15- <br />mile reach' is viewed as critical in recovering Colorado River populations of endangered Colorado <br />squawfish (Ptychocheilus lulus) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). <br />Previous recommendations for flows during summer (July-September) in the 15-mile reach were <br />provided by Kaeding and Osmundson (1989). In that report, flow levels were recommended based <br />on output from the Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM), a model often employed <br />within the larger Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM). Summer use of the reach was <br />considered most valuable as habitat for adult Colorado squawfish and the PHABSIM model was <br />used to predict what flow level would maximize the amount of river consisting of microhabitats <br />with a set of depth, velocity and substrate characteristics often selected by adult squawfish. <br />FWS later provided recommendations for the 15-mile reach for the remainder of the year, i.e., the <br />winter and spring months (Osmundson and Kaeding 1991). In determining flows for the winter <br />months, use of comparatively deep water by both species during winter led FWS to conclude that <br />flow needs would be greater than during summer. Until more data could be collected or analyzed <br />the interim recommendation was for current or historic flow regimes to be maintained. <br />For the spring months, FWS concluded that the greatest value of high flows, typical of the spring <br />runoff period, was the year-round benefits provided by the scouring and flushing action of the flood <br />waters, i.e., channel maintenance, removal of embedded fine sediments from gravel and cobble <br />substrates, control of vegetation encroachment, entrainment of organic debris from the floodplain <br />into the channel, control of otherwise prolific non-native fish , etc. Of particular importance was a <br />relationship that was noted between reproductive success of Colorado squawfish and peak spring <br />flows within a given range of magnitudes. In addition, FWS linked the spawning and nursery <br />habitat needs of razorback sucker to the ability of the river to flood its banks during the spawning <br />period. <br />Summer and Winter Flows <br />Serious shortcomings of the IFIM approach used in developing flow recommendations for the <br />endangered fish in the upper Colorado River led FWS to initiate anew study for determining <br />recovery flows for the non-runoff, summer and winter periods. Rather than modeling <br />microhabitats based on depth, velocity and substrate measurements at a site thought to be <br />representative of the reach, the approach used here was to determine which habitat types (pools, <br />riffles, etc.) were preferred by the fish and then determine at what flow level such preferred types <br />are maximized in area As with other instream flow methodologies, the underlying assumption is <br />x
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.