Yampa River Basin Research Final Synthesis Report

Home Browse Search

7. ISSUES IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION The Yampa Management Team believes most of the relevant technical data needed for the PBO have been collected or are readily available (e.g., USGS stream flow records). However, several issues need to be resolved before a PBO can be developed. Significant issues raised during the Synthesis Conference or identified in comments on the draft Synthesis Report are listed below. Each bullet includes a consensus as to issue resolution, where a consensus was reached, or the substance of issues still in dispute. Geographic extent of PBO: The Little Snake River is the largest tributary to the Yampa, encompassing half of the watershed area and contributing 28 percent of the flow upstream from Deerlodge Park. Its benefits to the Yampa and potential impacts of water development on the Little Snake must be considered. Impacts downstream on the middle Green River due to depletions from the Yampa River Basin must be addressed, also. The Yampa PBO also must coordinate with the related PBOs (e.g., Flaming Gorge, Duchesne). However, the Yampa PBO must not be required to mitigate the impacts of Flaming Gorge and Duchesne. Year -round flow recommendations: Instream flow requirements for fish were determined for mid - summer through early fall (August- October). The flow needs of fishes also must be identified for the balance of the non -peak flow period (November- March), especially if these flows are used to augment low flows during August- October. The USFWS is evaluating its past year -round flow recommendations to determine if they are still appropriate or should be modified in light of more recent research. • Role of the Aquatic Management Plan: This plan includes removing nonnative fish from the Yampa River and placing them in ponds and reservoirs in the basin, which are isolated from the river. Because competition and predation by nonnatives represent a significant challenge to the recovery of the endangered fishes, the PBO should incorporate this element of the RIPRAP. • Incidental take protection for anglers: Anglers are concerned that they could be held liable for mortality they inflict on endangered fishes by capturing and handling them while sport fishing. Can incidental take by anglers be covered by the PBO? Anglers can be protected for their participation in nonnative fish control activities covered by the PBO. ' • Future demand horizons: Should measures to protect fish be implemented based on the expectation of future water demands before the need for water exists? Or should recovery actions be phased in as depletions increase over time? Since the ultimate goal of the RIP is ' to recover the endangered fishes, it may be appropriate to implement some measures as soon as possible, while other measures specifically intended to offset the impacts of depletions could be phased in, commensurate with depletions. ' • Conservation alternatives: Water conservation measures have been dismissed as viable alternatives for several reasons. Agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in the Yampa Valley. Implementing conservation measures, such as sprinkler irrigation systems, ' would be costly for agriculture, and the potential benefits of such measures are illusory. Conservation measures would have little effect on consumption; water diversions and return flows would be reduced, resulting in only a marginal net increase in stream flow. Locally, ' however, stream flows could increase immediately below diversion structures. But the potential benefits to endangered fishes due to increased stream flows through relatively short ' river reaches may not justify the cost of these measures (also see Section 4). 19