Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Calculations of synthesized river discharge versus habitat <br /> <br /> <br />availability were made using field data and IFG-4 computer programs <br /> <br /> <br />(Table 5 and Figure 13). Based upon these results, it was determined <br /> <br /> <br />that maximum weighted useable area (WITA), expressed in ft2/lOOO f~ of <br /> <br /> <br />linear stream at the White River study site is provided at 550 ft3/s <br /> <br /> <br />(15.6 m3/s) discharge. Colorado squawfish are reproductively most <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />active in June and July, consequently, these are the months when river <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />flows for spawning could be critical. During the period of record, <br /> <br /> <br />1964-1979 (USGS gauging station near Colorado-Utah state line), maximum <br /> <br />WITA during June for squawfish spawning would have occurred in 1966 at 430 <br />ft3/s (12.2 m3/s) and during July at 543 ft3/s (15.4 m3/s) in <br />1969 (Table 6). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Comparing results of 1982, physical habitat investigations with flow <br /> <br /> <br />recommendations presented by the FWS (1982), spawning habitat should be <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />improved from normal conditions. Maximum WUA for Colorado squawfish <br /> <br /> <br />spawning would be approached (within one percent) in average or wet water <br /> <br /> <br />years. In dry years the FWS recommended flow of 375 ft3/s (10.6 m3/s) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />would fall 17 percent below maximum, but remain greater than historical <br /> <br />conditions. <br /> <br />It should be recognized that Colorado squawfish spawning suitability <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />curves used in this analysis were constructed based upon northern <br /> <br />squawfish spawning preference compared to available habitat conditions in <br /> <br /> <br />the Yampa River (Prewitt et al. 1982, in Miller et al. 1982). The <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />applicability of using these data in this situation is questionable since <br /> <br />they are neither species specific nor site specific to the White River. <br /> <br />Interpretation of this analysis should be weighed cautiously and be <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />33 <br /> <br />. <br />