Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />,; <br />I <br />I <br />I) <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I' <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />Conservation and management of native species is now a major consideration <br />within the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). This is especially true for species <br />that are lisled as federally threaten or endangered. Four species of fish in the Colorado <br />River basin are listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Upper <br />Colorado River Recovery Program was established to identify and resolve problems, so <br />these fish can eventually be down-listed (Wydoski and Hamill 1991). The state of <br />Colorado and the Recovery Program share the same goal of recovering the fish, but their <br />agencies may not share common strategies. A unifying approach for native fish <br />management objectives is to agree on the scientific validity of data involved in <br />identilication of limiting factors. <br /> <br />In Colorado State government instream flow protection for fish via water rights <br />has been a common practice in high elevation headwaters (Espregren 1998). Water rights <br />adjudication, however. has become a rigorous legal process for high profile wann water <br />rivers like the Colorado and Yampa Rivers where water is already highly over- <br />appropriated. In response, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducted studies <br />for instream flow recommendations in regard to recovery of endangered fish species in <br />the IS-Mile Reach of the Colorado River (Osmundson et al. 1995) and the Yampa River <br />(Modde and Smith 1995). Modde et al. (1999) was a field-based study on the Yampa <br />River. also sponsored by the Recovery Program. Even though the intent of these flow <br />studies was the same, to determine stream flow requirements for endangered fish, <br />recommendations were based on vastly different methodologies. <br /> <br />The goal of this project was to develop biologically based instream flow <br />recommendations for the Colorado in the IS-Mile Reach and Yampa rivers based on <br />habitat and flow requirements for non-endangered native fish. The identification and <br />validation of flow needs for non-endangered native fish may assist in preventing listing <br />these species in the future. This data may also be of value to the Endangered Fish <br />Recovery Program by providing ancillary information concerning the overall fish <br />community and descriptions of physical habitat availability. <br /> <br />Typically CDOW uses the R2Cross method (Nehring 1979) or PHABSIM (Bovee <br />1982) for making instream flow recommendations for protecting cold water habitats. <br />However these two methods were not considered appropriate for the warm water sections <br />of the Colorado and Yampa Rivers given the elevated levels of biological, geomorphic <br />and social complexities for these rivers. <br /> <br />This study employed a Meso-Habitat approach that is similar in concept to <br />PHABSIM. PHABSIM is widely used in North America to quantify impacts of altered <br />flow regimes to habitat. PHABSIM consists of two modeling components. The <br />hydraulic component is a series of one-dimensional cross-sections that are linked to <br />produce a series ofrectangular cells that form a grid. Mean depth and velocity conditions <br />are calculated for each cell for a given flow. The biological component is a set of <br />suitability index curves for depth and velocity criteria that are used to rate micro-habitat <br />