Laserfiche WebLink
T <br />Figure 4. Side channel at low flow on the Yampa River diked <br />for fish habitat enhancement at river mile 121. The <br />rock dike in the foreground is partially beached. <br />Table V. Percentage composition of native and non-native <br />fishes in a designed backwater created from a <br />partially-blocked side channel in the Yampa River, <br />river mile 121 (n=867). <br />Native Species Percentage <br />Composition Non-Native <br />Species Percentage <br />Composition <br />roundtail chub 18.1 redside shiner 45.4 <br />speckled dace 8.3 fathead minnow 23.4 <br />bluehead sucker 1.2 white sucker 2.8 <br />flannelmouth sucker 0.4 common carp p,2 <br />Total: 28.0 speckled dace x <br /> redside shiner 0.1 <br /> bluehead sucker x <br /> white sucker 0.1 <br /> Total : 72.0 <br />could be similarly disadvantaged in size and face competition <br />from native and non-native species. <br />These designed backwaters appear to have been only par- <br />tially successful because the dikes were breached or partially <br />breached. This suggests that backwaters created from side <br />channels should be formed by high non-porous and stable dikes. <br />Also, none of the endangered fishes have been recorded recent- <br />ly from the vicinity of these backwaters, illustrating the <br />need for proper location and placement of these enhancements. <br />Gravel Pits <br />Gravel extraction is especially prevalent in the flood- <br />plain of the Colorado River near Grand Junction, Colorado. A <br />nearly continuous series of gravel pits now line the flood- <br />plain. These vary in size, depth, shape and orientation to <br />the river channel, and are of three types; those permanently <br />open to the river, those open to the river only during high <br />spring flows, and those permanently isolated from the river. <br />The third type is not considered in this analysis. Most <br />industries prefer to excavate away from [he high water line <br />to avoid costly delays from 404 permits required by the Water <br />Quality Act and consultation required by Section 7 of the <br />Endangered Species Act. So, most gravel operations are <br />conducted away from the high water line and are of the third <br />type. Proper structural specifications are still needed for <br />advising industries on appropriate design, and excavation and <br />rehabilitation techniques to benefit especially native <br />riverine fishes. <br />Gravel pits permanently open [o the river are most <br />commonly excavated in large midchannel islands or low flood- <br />plains, such as the 30 Road Pit near Clifton, Colorado <br />(Figure 5). The 1.0-ha pit was excavated from a midchannel <br />island in 1978, leaving a horseshoe-shaped gravel berm with a <br />downstream opening. Water circulates into the pit through <br />the opening that was nearly sealed by shifting silt and <br />gravel during runoff 1980. Maximum depth of this pit was 5.5 <br />m and average depth was 1.1 m (Table VI). Silt deposits have <br />nearly filled the rear of the backwater and covered the <br />gravel substrate to a depth of 0.3-0.5 m. Emergent vegeta- <br />tion has become established in the silt deposits,. and ducks <br />and geese were seen resting and feeding in the pit in October <br />1980. The pit was sealed from the river in 1981, except <br />during runoff. <br />Fish composition when open to the river in 1980 and <br />1981, was dominated by non-native species (73.3%), pre- <br />dominantly carp, red shiner, fathead minnow, sand shiner and <br />528 j 529 <br />°' ~ -~- <br />~'. ~._- <br />