Laserfiche WebLink
20 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 24 <br />with debris on the floodplain surfaces as flows <br />declined after the spring spate. Gradually drying <br />soils of fine riverine alluvium provided ideal sub- <br />stratum and water supply for germination and <br />growth of seedlings. As a result of this unique <br />coupling of the tree's life cycle with the annual <br />hydrograph, trees of even age can be used to date <br />the extent of past high flow events. Moreover, <br />cottonwood leaves dropped in fall and blown into <br />the river provide an important allochthonous <br />source of nutrients for riverine food webs. Only <br />remnant forests remain today along the rivers of <br />the Upper Colorado River Basin owing to regula- <br />tion of flow, which limits distribution of seeds and <br />conditions required for germination. Agricultural <br />activities such as grazing and tillage, and flood- <br />plain revetments also prevent establishment of <br />cottonwood seedlings. Replacement of riparian <br />forests of naturally reproducing cottonwoods and <br />associated native plants by nonnative plants in a <br />narrow fringe along the river corridor is a classic <br />symptom of the severing of dynamic spatial and <br />temporal connections between the river channel <br />and its floodplain (Stanford and Ward 1986a, <br />1992a,1993). <br />Two questions require resolution with regard to <br />riparian ecology and imposition of reregulated <br />flows in the Upper Colorado River Basin. First, <br />how much flooding and what frequency of flooding <br />does the riparian zone require to maintain native <br />riparian vegetation? Fisher et al. (1983) showed <br />that the Yampa corridor remains largely un- <br />changed, although salt cedar has invaded <br />throughout the lower half of the river. The 1983- <br />84 high floods allowed cottonwoods to reseed along <br />the upper Green River (personal observation). <br />Other flows over the last several decades have not <br />produced cottonwoods. Second, how much of an <br />effect will encroachment of vegetation into the <br />river channel have on reconfiguration of the chan- <br />nel if peak flows are reinstated? Studies are <br />needed to quantify this very apparent relation- <br />ship between reduction of peak flow events and <br />changes within the riparian vegetation of the Up- <br />per Colorado River Basin. <br />Loss of Food Web Function in the Varial <br />Zone: The Problem of Baseflow Instability <br />Hydropower operations have produced erratic <br />baseflows on the Gunnison (e.g., Fig. 11) and on <br />the Green River (e.g., Fig. 10) that are especially <br />problematic because they destabilize food webs in <br />the varial zone of the river. The varial zone is the <br />shallow area of the shoreline (as opposed to the <br />middle or thalweg of the channel) that is inun- <br />dated and dewatered by the peak flow events. <br />Hence, the varial zone includes riparian vegeta- <br />tion as well as portions of the primary and secon- <br />dary channels and backwaters not normally con- <br />sidered part of the riparian zone. In an <br />unregulated river the varial zone may be large <br />and dynamic in the context of natural geomorphic <br />variability described by Fig. 2 or in the context of <br />the gallery forest discussed above. The varial zone <br />in a regulated river often is smaller owing to <br />reduction in peak flows, but, more importantly, <br />the varial zone of a regulated river usually is <br />repeatedly watered and dewatered by dam opera- <br />tions for hydropower generation. As markets for <br />hydropower vary, so does water output from the <br />dam. The result on the Green and Gunnison rivers <br />is reflected in high spikes above baseflow (e.g., at <br />points of initiation shown by arrows in Fig. 11) <br />often lasting several days (e.g., note also sudden <br />changes in flow in Fig. 10). The extreme nature of <br />these flow changes is more evident when hourly <br />flows are plotted for the same periods (Figs. 12 <br />and 13). Regulated flows below hydropower dams <br />also often reflect the consequences of the dam <br />operators need to control electrical load (peaking <br />operations), as on the Green River in 1992 (i.e., <br />diel cycles evident in Figs. 12 and 13). Peaking <br />and other short-term operations water and dewa- <br />ter the varial zone of a regulated river with much <br />greater frequency than would occur under natural <br />conditions. Stanford and Hauer (1992) demon- <br />strated that diel changes on the Middle Fork of <br />the Flathead River, an unregulated snow-melt <br />river in Montana, were consistently less than 5% <br />per day during the baseflow period. <br />Repeated flushing of the varial zone prevents <br />establishment of food webs and resting areas for <br />small fish, which are required to support riverine <br />fisheries. Weisberg et al. (1990) demonstrated that <br />standing crops of zoobenthos increased 100-fold in <br />1 year in a regulated river after eliminating peak- <br />ing operations at the dam and thereby reducing the <br />devastating ecological effects of unnatural, short- <br />term flushing of the varial zone. Repeated flushing <br />also removes plant growth nutrients and alters the <br />natural thermal insolation of shallow backwaters, <br />which are especially important for bioproduction of <br />low velocity food webs in general and for growth of <br />squawfish and razorback sucker specifically. <br />Despite the laudable reregulation effort by op- <br />erators of Flaming Gorge Dam to stay within flow