Laserfiche WebLink
Scope of Work <br />Water Conservancy District and reflect future conditions as impacted by both the Moffat <br />Tunnel and Windy Gap furning projects. Specific tasks are outlined below. <br />3.4.1.1 Perform time series analysis for the three yeazs (dry, normal and wet years) and <br />identify flow limitations relative to recommended flows from Phase 2 and 3a. <br />3.4.1.2 Develop appropriate tables and figures summarizing and comparing results of available <br />habitat for dif%reirt life stages and species for cwrerrt conditions. <br />3.4.1.3 Identify key habitat differences between the flow scenarios and conditions. <br />3.4.1.4 Identify reaches where recommended flows may not be fully achieved and may be <br />better addressed with restoration. Prepare a technical memorandum to summarize the <br />analyses. <br />3.4 Restoration Opportunities For the purpose of this proposal the following analysis pertains to the <br />14 reaches with PHABSIM study sites developed in Phases 2 and 3a. These reaches are referred <br />to below as `study reaches'. <br />3.5.1 Integrate Stream Assessment with Erevironmental Flow Recommendations. The goal of this <br />task is to integrate the stream assessment findings for the study reaches with environmental <br />flow recommendations and identify reaches that appear stressed under existing conditions, and <br />could be stressed under future altered conditions. This task includes using existing habita.t-flow <br />relatrons and PHABSIM sites to the extecrt possible, to assess the trade-offs between physical <br />restoration versus enhancement of stream flows for improving stream health. <br />A stream matrix and ranking system is proposed. Based on the matrix and professional <br />judgment begin to prioritize reaches for different types of management strategies such.as flow <br />enhancement, and/or physical restoration. Specific tasks are outlined below. <br />3. 5.1.1 Develop stream reach matrix based on field-based assessmerrt and ra,nk the reaches <br />based on field-derived analyses. This matrix will include problems and/or issues <br />identified in the field from the work performed in Phases 2 and 3a. <br />3.5.1.2 Incorporate flow regime (gection 3.4) analysis into matrix, identifying streams with the <br />smallest to largest flow deviation from recommended flows. <br />3.5.1.3 Add fish density and biomass data. <br />3.5.1.4 Incorporate other findings from Phase 2 and 3a into the stream reach matrix including <br />temperahuc deviations fiom guidelines, deviations from water user needs and <br />recreational flows, fish and boater passage barriers, fish disease, etc. Develop and <br />implement a procedure to reconcile the differences in flows far different uses and select <br />a priority use and target flow regime(s). Identify restoration goals for those reaches <br />identified as suitable for restoraEion. <br />3.5.1.5 Incorporate updates to the recreational flows from the American Whitewater study. <br />3.5,1.6 Review available worlc by others as it relaxes to flow modifications and possible impact <br />to the Stream Management Plan. <br />3.5.1. 7 Utilizing the results from the matrix and razilcing system, and restoration goals, identify <br />slream segmerrts suitable for possible restoration, achieved either by flow managemeirt <br />techniques or physical restoration, or a combination of both. <br />3.5.1.8 Prepare a technical memorandum to summarize the results of this task <br />O Grand County, Colorado TETRA TECH <br />Stream Management Plan, Phcrse 3B 4 <br />TETRATECH <br />