My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7752
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7752
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:31 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 4:39:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7752
Author
Stanford, J. A.
Title
Instream Flows to Assist the Recovery of Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin
USFW Year
1993.
USFW - Doc Type
Review and Synthesis of Ecological Information, Issues, Methods and Rationale.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
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
<br />. <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />filled with bed materials (Lyons and Pucherelli 1992). In the Gunnison Gorge of the Gunnison <br />River downstream from the Aspinall Units, summer thunderstorms in 1991-92 caused debris flows <br />in normally dry side flow channels. This episodic inflow of rocks and soil created large alluvial <br />fans out into the river, which have persisted owing to insufficient peak flows to flush alluvium <br />, . <br /> <br />downstream (Elliott and Parker 1992). <br /> <br />Channel Encroachment by Riparian Plants <br />The inability of the regulated river to redistribute alluvium allows encroachment of <br />vegetation into the river channel. Dense vegetation down to the low water mark (Le., minimum flow <br />channel) is an ecological feature that now characterizes the river corridor of the regulated segments <br /> <br />of the Gunnison (Stanford and Ward 1984), Colorado (Graf 1978, Stanford and Ward 1986b, <br />Osmundson and Kaeding 1991) and Green Rivers (Fisher et al. 1983). However, Fisher et al. <br />(1983) also provided very clear evidence that vegetation along the shoreline of the Yampa River has <br />not substantially changed in over 100 years because the Yampa remains unregulated. Unvegetated, <br />bare sandbars and backwaters evident in photographs taken in 1871 were amazingly unchanged in <br />photos of the same spots in 1983. Record high flows in 1983 did not change this interpretation <br />(Potter 1984). Clearly, the scouring effect of spring floods does limit the distribution of riparian <br />plants into the channel and backwaters on the YampaRiver, whereas riparian vegetation composed <br />primarily of nonnative species such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea); salt cedar <br />(Tamarix pentandra) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) is gradually choking the <br />regulated segments of the Upper Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />Two interactive processes are involved in the long-term succession of regulated stream <br /> <br />riparia. First, reduction of peak flows allows encroachment of riparian vegetation into the channel, <br />backwaters and floodplain wetlands, if the latter two are stilI hydrologically functional after <br />regulation. The riparian zone of regulated rivers is small but frequently dewatered and rehydrated. <br />Second, nonnative plants are more competitive in the stabilized environment that exists in the narrow <br />saturated zone next to the river channel and backwaters, and they tend to dominate the community. <br /> <br />32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.