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 />Rationale for fluctuation criteria during base flow each year was not explicit The intent <br />apparently was for the Bureau of Reclamation to select a target flow between 1,800 - 1,100 cfs and <br />not vary it more that:t 12.5%. The rationale for the 12.5% figure was not given. However, for <br />perspective, flows in the North Fork of the Aathead River, Montana (an unregulated r!~er similar in <br />size and water yield to the Yampa and Green Rivers), do not vary more than about 5% per day at <br />baseflow and remain around 10% per day during spring runoff (see Figure 8 in Stanford and <br />Hauer 1992). As noted above, this relationship should be examined quantitatively on the <br />unregulated Yampa River to shore up the fluctuation criteria for Flaming Gorge Dam operations <br />during the summer and for the duration of the baseflow period. <br />However, it is quite clear that the current interim flow regime allows a great deal of <br />fluctuation at baseflow. Indeed, due to Flaming Gorge operations, rapid and severe fluctuations <br />were apparent in hydrographs obtained during late summer and winter, 1992, (Figures 10 and 12- <br />14) at the Jensen gauge on the Green River downstream from the Yampa confluence. These <br />hydrographs were recorded after the interim flow criteria described above were supposedly <br />implemented; yet, the fluctuations do not correspond to the criteria. I believe that even strict <br />adherence to the recommended baseflow criteria of the interim flow agreement will not protect (and <br />certainly not enhance) bioproduction and species diversity of food webs within the varial zone of <br />the river (including backwaters and floodplain wetlands). Bioproduction in backwaters probably is <br />virtually eliminated by one dewatering event, and some period of time (weeks to months) of more <br />stable water levels may be required for recovery (my obsetvation). Moreover, the flow-backwater <br />relationship of Pucherelli et al. (1990), upon which the baseflow recommendations were made, is <br />valid only for current channel morphology and will likely change with onset of new peak flows. <br />Additional research is needed to clarify these important flow - backwater food web relationships, <br />but it must be linked to a more predictable baseflow regime from the dam. <br />The ecological basis of the temperature criterion (Le., < 50C change at Jensen relative to <br />Yampa River temperatures at the confluence) was not established for either the channel or the <br />backwater environments. I argue in Section III above that temperature pattern in the channel and <br /> <br />58 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.