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 />Hann 1989). Such output is nonsense because the ecological data for these fishes clearly shows <br />the importance of backwaters and eddies that occur at much higher flows. The problem here is that <br />IFlM probably should never have been used in the big river reaches of the Upper Colorado River <br />Basin. When low velocity habitats are abundant, as they are throughout the potamon of the <br />Colorado River system, the simulator underestimates the WUA; in fact, the model cannot deal with <br />zero flow habitats. This explains why IFIM works well only in small streams where the channel is <br />characterized by unifonnly varying flow (e.g., the low velocity profIle reflects steady, uniform flow <br />which is also an assumption of the HEC-2 hydrology simulator that is often used in IFIM, my <br />observations). Also, habitat suitability curves were probably biased because the fish were difficult <br />to observe or collect in the usually turbid, deep water of the Yampa and Green Rivers (Rose and <br />Hann 1989) which is precisely why the adult monitoring program (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service <br />1987b) emphasizes shallow, shoreline habitats that can be effectively sampled by electrofishing. <br />However, the fishes routinely use deep water habitats (e.g., Tyus and McAda 1984, McAda and <br />Kaeding 1991), and movement between habitats (e.g., channel, backwaters) on a diel basis cannot be <br />accounted for in the method. A fmal point to keep in mind is that the utility of IFIM evolved a great <br />deal during the period that data were being gathered in the Upper Colorado River Basin studies, and <br />deficiencies in the method with regard to the Colorado River perhaps were not apparent at the time <br />much of the data were gathered. <br /> <br />Are There Other Options? <br />Certainly strong inferences can be derived from careful measures of channel processes that <br />influence habitats important to the fishes. Reiser et al. (1989b) recently described the physical <br />relationships between hydraulics and movement of sediments with respect to deriving flushing <br />flows to remove fme sediments entrained within the bottom of an alluvial river, as described above <br />for the Gunnison River. These principles of flow mechanics can be used to derive other formalized <br />approaches to manage flows for the purpose of maintaining channel forms the fishes use. <br />Sediment transport mechanics depend upon detailed information on sediment gradation, channel <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.