WSP01244 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

INTRODUCTION Habitat loss is one of the single greatest causes of declines in populations of native fishes in North America (Williams et al. 1989). The need to preserve minimum streamflows was recognized by the State of ~olorado by the passage of Senate Bill 97 in 1973. Espegren (1998) states that most instream flow water right filings in Colorado have been for protecting minimum flow for cold water (headwater) habitats. The most common methodologies used in Colorado are the R2Cross method (Nehring 1979) and Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) (Bovee 1982). IFIM estimates the amount of usable habitat for fish as a function of discharge by combining habitat suitability curves with the hydraulic equation. The habitat component of the model has received much criticism because of assumptions implicit with using suitability curves and assumptions of positive relationships between habitat availability and fish abundance. Validation of these assumptions have been obstacles for successfully using IFIM to model minimum flow impacts on large warm water rivers of the west slope {Rose and Hahn 1989). Currently there is no standardized approach to establish minimum flow needs on warm water river sections, and the use of sophisticated models appear to be required in high profile situations (Espegren 1998). Warm water fish assemblages appear to require a more intensive approach to instream flow modeling compared to cold water fish communities. Warm water river reaches tend to be lower gradient and have higher channel complexity and sediment loads. WaJ.m water fish populations tend to have higher species diversity. Also, habitat suitability curves derived from microhabitat observations do not adequately describe habitat use for many warm water species. A broader conununity-level perspective, as opposed to an indicator species approach, may be required to protect all habitats of a fimctioning warm water stream ecosystem. Instream flow techniques require integration of two processes that combine detailed knowledge of habitat requirements (by species and life stage), and the availability of necessary habitats. Both the collection aJ.1d analysis of these data bases have been very labor intensive. Recent advances in surveying technique (e.g. G.P.S.) and computer capabilities (G.LS.) allow for collection aJ.1d processing of much larger databases. Also, two-dimensional (2-D) flow models may have potential for application in instream flow studies (Leclerc et aI., 1995; Bovee, 1996). In theory, 2-D models offer a significant improvement over one-dimensional (I-D) modeling by increasing spatial resolution, allowing for highly accurate quantification of physical habitat availability. A spatially explicit flow model may eliminate the need for microhabitat suitability 70 - 5