Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Bureau of Reclamation's

More documents

Recommendations

Info

41JUN 15,660 14,250 11,350 6,850JUL 7,060 5,370 3,150 1,480AUG 1,630 1,630 1,240 810SEP 1,630 1,630 1,240 810OCT 1,630 1,630 1,240 810NOV 1,630 1,630 1,630 1,240DEC 1,630 1,630 1,630 1,240Table 3. Volumes of water (in hundreds of acre-feet) needed per 10-day period to producehydro-graphs recommended for the 15-Mile Reach during the spring runoff period (April, May,June and July). AP-1 represents the first 10 days in April; AP-2, the second 10 days, etc. Tablefrom Osmundson et al. 1995.Rate 25 percent 25 percent 30 percent 20 percentExceedance 25 percent 50 percent 80 percent 100 percentAP-1 317 276 295 245AP-2 563 450 416 343AP-3 1,029 726 634 519MA-1 1,573 1,104 957 892MA-2 2,073 1,817 1,516 1,488MA-3 2,944 2,846 2,267 2,085JN-1 3,197 2,770 2,566 1,778JN-2 3,209 3,066 2,368 1,404JN-3 2,914 2,643 1,818 893JL-1 2,060 1,617 990 470JL-2 1,328 977 578 246JL-3 955 707 372 194The Colorado River Decision Support System includes the State of Colorado's Stream SimulationModel which is a monthly or daily water allocation and accounting model capable of makingcomparative analyses for the assessment of various historic and future water management policies
in a river basin. While the model is capable of doing daily operations, daily data does not exist insufficient quantity to operate on a daily basis. It is designed to be applied to any river basin byinputting appropriate data. The State Model's operation, like the stream itself, is governed by itshydrology, water rights, and the associated structures and operating rules. The State Model iscapable of simulating stream diversions, instream demands, reservoir operations and river flowson a monthly basis for any stream system using user specified data. One major component of themodel is the Base Flow module, which produces a set of stream flows that would have occurredin the basin without a user specified level of human development. When the effects of depletionsare removed, the base flow developed would represent baseline flow conditions, as discussedabove. The baseline flow conditions for a wet, average and dry year are displayed in Figure 3.Baseline flow conditions provided higher spring peaks and lower base flows. In wet years,average monthly peak in May or June exceeded 26,000 cfs in the 15-Mile Reach. Appendix Fdescribes modeling assumptions used to make the model runs. The results of these runs wereused to develop the following figures and tables.Status of the Species Within the Action AreaIt is difficult to determine the status of the species under baseline conditions because baselineconditions assume baseline flow conditions but other factors, such as nonnative fish, dams, fishbarriers, dikes, and bank stabilization are assumed to still be in place. These other factors have allbeen identified as negatively impacting the endangered fishes. There is limited informationregarding the four species under more natural flow conditions, but this information would notnecessarily include the negative impacts of nonnative fish, dams, fish barriers, dikes, or bankstabilization. Information regarding the four fish species under more natural flow conditions islimited to a few technical papers (Abbott 1861, Baird and Girard 1853, Chamberlain 1904, Copeand Yarrow 1875, Ellis 1914, Everman and Rutter 1895, Girard 1856, Jordan 1891, Jordan andEvermann 1896) and historical photos and accounts of senior citizens interviewed in 1991(Quartarone 1995). The technical papers generally document the wide spread distribution andreport some endangered species common throughout the Colorado River Basin (humpback chubwere not even described until 1946 (Miller 1946)). However, this historical information is limitedto taxonomic and distributional data. Very little was known about the life history of these speciesprior to the 1960's (Miller 1964).42
Page 1 and 2: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
Page 3 and 4: INCIDENTAL TAKE ...................
Page 5 and 6: 2" Reclamation’s portion of 120,0
Page 7 and 8: On January 21-22, 1988, the Secreta
Page 9 and 10: funding component of the Recovery P
Page 11 and 12: 81. Habitat Protection ElementGener
Page 13 and 14: Also, the Service and the Colorado
Page 15 and 16: Table 1. The estimated benefits in
Page 17 and 18: through recovery efforts that will
Page 19 and 20: native fishes. Also, some species o
Page 21 and 22: “new” depletions. This would in
Page 23 and 24: Based on early fish collection reco
Page 25 and 26: infrequent pulsed recruitment make
Page 27 and 28: Area, in the Loma to Black Rocks re
Page 29 and 30: 26Figure 1. Distribution of adult C
Page 31 and 32: during high flows. Some of the pike
Page 33 and 34: In the Upper Basin, above Glen Cany
Page 35 and 36: 32Populations DynamicsThere are no
Page 37 and 38: in low velocity shorelines and back
Page 39 and 40: 36IMPORTANCE OF THE 15-MILE REACHTh
Page 41 and 42: occur in the 15-Mile Reach). Provid
Page 43: Applying the above regulations, the
Page 47 and 48: 44Factors Affecting Species Environ
Page 49 and 50: 46To determine conditions with wate
Page 51 and 52: 48140001200010000CFS800060004000200
Page 53 and 54: 50CFS240002200020000180001600014000
Page 55 and 56: 52CFS280002600024000220002000018000
Page 57 and 58: Release and protection of surplus H
Page 59 and 60: 56CFS500045004000350030002500200015
Page 61 and 62: The formation of a variety of chann
Page 63 and 64: options will be determined through
Page 65 and 66: Passage at the Price-Stubb Diversio
Page 67 and 68: species. Recent population estimate
Page 69 and 70: the endangered fishes. Ongoing Reco
Page 71 and 72: 68the Colorado pikeminnow, razorbac
Page 73 and 74: 70There are no current population e
Page 75 and 76: additional reasonable and prudent m
Page 77 and 78: The Recovery Action Plan is an adap
Page 79 and 80: 76actions have all been completed a
Page 81 and 82: 78LITERATURE CITEDAbbott, C. C. 186
Page 83 and 84: 80the Upper Colorado River Basin, P
Page 85 and 86: Kaeding, L. R., and D. B. Osmundson
Page 87 and 88: Minckley, W. L. 1983. Status of the
Page 89 and 90: Pitlick, J., and M. Van Steeter. 19
Page 91 and 92: Tyus, H. M., B. D. Burdick, R. A. V
Page 93: Wick, E. J. 1997. Physical processe

Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Bureau of Reclamation's

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?