Laserfiche WebLink
<br />RECO~ENDATIONS <br /> <br />1. No additional intensive monitoring studies are needed to evaluate if the structure impedes <br />movement of Colorado squawfish. However, since extreme low flows were not observed during <br />this study, BIO/WEST recommends that conditions associated with the structure at extreme low <br />flows be documented and provided to the USFWS. Documentation can be done by a fIShery <br />biologist experienced with conditions in the Upper Colorado River Basin and should include <br />photographs and an evaluation of conditions relative to fISh passage through the structure. This <br />documentation could be accomplished by one visit to the site during low flows. <br /> <br />2. Additional documentation or study of the Craig diversion structure associated with critical low <br />flow should be based on USGS hydrological data. The USFWS should be responsible for <br />determining what is considered a critical low flow in the Yampa River by using USGS rating <br />curves. A gaging site should also be selected to monitor discharge and rating curves should be <br />applied to that site. <br /> <br />3. Radiotelemetry should not be used in the future for studies of this nature unless adequate time <br />is allocated for tracking fish. <br /> <br />4. Intensive mark and recapture studies utilizing all species of fish are effective for evaluating <br />movement over a control structure in a small river and should be considered for future studies <br />of this nature. <br /> <br />5. Evaluation of existing or future diversion structures on the Yampa River should be based on <br />existing information of distribution and migrational movements of endangered and native fishes <br />in the system, physical parameters associated with existing and proposed designs, and cost!benefit <br />analysis relative to the recovery of a species or the river system. <br /> <br />28 <br />