Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />of these fishes. Development of alternatives to avoid, minimize, or rectify <br />the impacts of water resource development will become more difficult as future <br />water development adds to the loss and alteration of endangered fish habitat <br />(USFWS 1987a). Solutions to water management conflicts need to be sought in <br />order to avoid confrontations between industry, government, and environmental <br />groups. The need for protection of instream flows, and possible acquisition <br />of water rights is necessary if the endangered fish fauna is to be saved, and <br />possibly recovered under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. <br />This report evaluates stream flow needs of four rare and endangered <br />Colorado River fishes (Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, bonytail chub, <br />razorback sucker) with respect to the natural flow regimen of the Yampa River. <br />Habitat requirements for each species in the upper Green River basin are first <br />reviewed by life history stage. This is followed by a discussion of factors <br />limiting the distribution and abundance of each species, and lastly, a <br />discussion of stream flow recommendations. <br />DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND HABITAT USE <br />General <br />The distribution and abundance of fishes indigenous to the Yampa River <br />has been documented by various workers (Haynes et al. 1984, Holden and <br />Stalnaker 1975, McAda and Wydowski 1980, Miller et al. 1982, Nesler 1986, <br />1988, Seethaler 1978, Tyus et al. 1982a, 1987, Wick et al. 1982, 1985, and <br />others). <br />In 1981, FWS divided the lower 124 miles of the Yampa River (Echo Park to <br />Round Bottom near Craig, Colorado) into eight relatively homogeneous river <br />sections (strata) (Figure 3), using topographic and geologic maps, aerial <br />5 <br />