Laserfiche WebLink
INSTREAM FLOWS TO ASSIST THE RECOVERY OF ENDANGERED FISHES 31 <br />(2) increase the frequency of years with peak <br />flows in excess of 40,000 cfs from 1 in 12 <br />years (8%, the current condition) to 1 in 4 <br />years (25%; i.e., flushing peaks); and <br />(3) the rest of the time (50%) maintain peak <br />flows equal to or exceeding 22,000 cfs (mini- <br />mal recruitment peak). <br />Within the 15-mile reach provide peak flows <br />as given in the Table. <br />Problems With the Flow <br />Recommendations of the U.S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service <br />Yampa River <br />Recommendations made for the Yampa River <br />specify maintenance of historical flows. This recom- <br />mendation apparently was determined solely on <br />the rationale that natural flows would foster con- <br />tinued spawning success by squawfish and increase <br />the likelihood that remaining razorback sucker and <br />humpback chub would be protected. <br />The Yampa River is a critical habitat for the <br />endangered fishes. Recruitment of populations in <br />the Green River may depend on spawning sites in <br />Yampa Canyon. Most importantly, the Yampa River <br />is the only reasonably pristine tributary remaining <br />in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Hence, I view <br />it as a "control" for evaluating the success or failure <br />of interim flows adopted in the regulated reach <br />which will be a critical assessment to be made in <br />the future. Therefore, I support the recommenda- <br />tion in principle, but the historical baseline used to <br />derive mean monthly flows seems to be incorrect. <br />Depletions in the Yampa River currently are about <br />110,000 cfs (Fig. 7; Brendecke 1993), not 68,000 cfs. <br />Also, I do not think it is appropriate to use monthly <br />means in such analyses because daily flow vari- <br />ation is a very important component of river ecol- <br />ogy. The daily flow duration curve for the period of <br />record would more accurately reflect the real base- <br />line. Moreover, if natural seasonal and daily flow <br />variations are vital to the fishes, then the natural <br />diel and daily flow variation observed in the Yampa <br />River should provide a basis for designing more <br />benign flows in the regulated Green River. <br />Green River <br />Recommendations on the Green River were <br />based on inferences from ecological studies of the <br />endangered fish and the backwater area to dis- <br />charge relationship determined by Pucherelli <br />et al. (1990). The main intent of the peak flow <br />recommendation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife <br />Service apparently was to add volume to the peak <br />flows derived from the Yampa River to create an <br />annual spring peak sufficient to flood and main- <br />tain connectivity of the channel to backwater en- <br />vironments and floodplain wetlands in the allu- <br />vial reaches near Jensen and downstream. <br />Rationale for duration and amplitude of the <br />spring peak was not given except with regard to <br />constraints on releases at Flaming Gorge Dam <br />(i.e., only 4,000 cfs can be discharged through the <br />generators, and an additional 4,000 cfs can be <br />passed through bypass or jet tubes without open- <br />ing flood gates). The fact that the Yampa and <br />Green rivers historically peaked at different times <br />was not clearly addressed, nor were the proposed <br />ramping rates on the rising and falling limbs of <br />the hydrograph, in either the context of the dis- <br />charge to backwater area relationship of <br />Pucherelli et al. (1990) or the need to establish <br />ecologically functional wetlands on the floodplain <br />(e.g., flooded bottomlands at Escalante Bottom). <br />The 1992 spring flows followed the hy- <br />drograph recommended in the Biological Opinion <br />(Fig. 17). <br />Rationale for fluctuation criteria during base- <br />flow each year was not explicit. The intent appar- <br />ently was for the Bureau of Reclamation to select <br />a target flow between 1,800 and 1,100 cfs and not <br />Table. Recommendations for spring flows in the 15-mile reach (from Osmundson and Kaeding 1991) <br />Frequency Mean monthly discharge (cfs) <br />(percent of years) Peak day April May June <br />25% > 23,500 > 3,900 > 12,900 > 16,300 <br />25% 20,500-23,500 3,200-3,900 10,800-12,900 12,800-16,200 <br />50% 14,800-20,500 2,400-3,200 8,300-10,800 10,000-12,800 <br />• Maintain July-September flows from 700 to 1,200 cfs in normal or wet years and 600 cfs minimum in dry <br />years within the 15-mile reach. <br />• Maintain current (1954-1989) base (winter) and transition (October and March) flows (1,000-2,000 cfs) in <br />the 15-mile reach