Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br />(( <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />. The CDOW has evaluated the 100 cfs year-round instream flow recommendation, based on their <br />data collection efforts (see Table I and Appendix A). The modeling results from this survey <br />effort are within the confidence interval produced by the R2CROSS model. <br /> <br />Biological and Field Survey Data <br />As reported in the letter from CDOW to the CWCB (attached), "This reach of the Arkansas <br />River is classified as a large river (over 100 feet wide) and fishery surveys indicate the stream <br />environment of this reach of the Arkansas River supports Black bulIhead (Ietalurus melas), <br />Central StonerolIer (Campostoma anomalum), Channel catfish (Ietalurns punctatus), Common <br />Carp (Cyprinus carpio), Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Flathead chub (Hybopsis <br />gracilis), Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), <br />Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides), Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), Longnose <br />sucker (Catostomus catostomus), Orangespotted sunfish (Lepomis humilis), Plains killifish <br />(Fundulus zebrinus), Red Shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), Sand shiner (Notropis stramineus), <br />Saugeye (Stizostedion vitreum x S, canadense), Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), White crappie <br />(Pomoxis annularis), White sucker (Catostomus commersoni), Wiper (Morone saxatilis x M. <br />chrysops), Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and Brown trout (Salmo trutta), <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis) historicalIy inhabited this reach of the Arkansas <br />River but have been absent from recent fishery surveys. Flathead chub (Platygobio graci/us) and <br />Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis) have been identified by the DOW and several <br />other state and federal agencies as "species of greatest conservation need". DOW is involved in <br />developing Conservation and Management Plans for these species. The intention of these plans <br />is to increase populations and distributions of identified species, thereby assisting in the long- <br />term persistence of each species, The success of such plans could potentialIy curtail the need for <br />federal listing of these species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These species are not <br />currently federalIy listed" (See CDOW Fish Survey in Appendix B), <br /> <br />Field Survey Data <br />CDOW staff used the R2CROSS methodology to evaluate the recommendation and determine if <br />it would preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree. The R2CROSS method <br />requires that stream discharge and channel profile data be colIected in a rime stream habitat type. <br />Rimes are most easily visualized, as the stream habitat types that would dry up first should <br />streamflow cease. This type of hydraulic data colIection consists of setting up a transect, <br />surveying the stream channel geometry, and measuring the stream discharge, Appendix B <br />contains copies of field data colIected for this proposed segment. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Biological Flow Recommendation <br />The CWCB staff relied upon the biological expertise of the CDOW to interpret output from the <br />R1CROSS data colIected to evaluate the instream flow recommendation, Three instream flow <br />hydraulic parameters, average depth, percent wetted perimeter, and average velocity were used <br />to evaluate the instream flow recommendation. The CDOW has determined that maintaining <br />these three hydraulic parameters at adequate levels across rime habitat types, aquatic habitat in <br />pools and runs will also be maintained for most life stages of fish and aquatic invertebrates <br />(Nehring 1979; Espegren 1996), <br /> <br />7 <br />