1 10 28 https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/9ad4067da1ad75eb9ff7a0c3fa13cb5b.pdf bd5abee54c9e9699edf77662fbf50044 PDF Text Text Vocational Heavy Construction Technology Program A Comprehensive Plan including Program Needs and Future Directions Matt Kondratieff Committee Members: Rod Van Velson, Tom Bowen, Larry Strohl Colorado Division of Wildlife – Aquatic Research Section April 2007 �EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1997 Warren Diesslin, former Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility, and Eddie Kochman, former Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Aquatic Section Manager, met and discussed a joint venture to rehabilitate degraded stream habitats while providing heavy construction training for inmates sincere about changing the direction of their lives. These men conceived and supported the vision of what is now known as the Vocational Heavy Construction Technology (VHCT) program. Tom Bowen, once a prison guard and later a Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) vocational educational instructor with years of practical heavy construction experience, developed and coordinated this program with the support and approval of Warden Diesslin. Tom contacted the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA) and they agreed to serve as a program sponsor. The CCA has since become an integral part of the program, serving as the advisory board and assisting student inmates with job placement once they have successfully completed the program. Through the VHCT program, two state agencies (CDOW and CDOC) and private industry have formed a rare partnership with different missions: to help redirect human lives while restoring river natural processes and aquatic habitats within driving distance of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility. Student inmates have rehabilitated 8.7 miles of degraded aquatic stream habitats on CDOW properties located along the South Platte River in South Park. South Park was identified as an ideal location to implement the program because CDOW owns or leases over 25 miles of public fishing waters in the Upper South Platte River drainage and its close proximity to the Buena Vista Correctional Facility. Much of the South Platte River in South Park is degraded due to excessive livestock grazing and mining. To date, 127 student inmates have graduated from the VHCT program. Program recidivism rate is 12% compared to a 60% overall recidivism rate in the Colorado penal system. Through FY 2006-2007, CDOW/CDOC river restoration projects in South Park have cost a total of $21/linear foot. A survey of six recent river restoration projects in Colorado conducted by private companies range in cost from $61-$390/linear foot. The average cost for these privateindustry projects was $218/linear foot. The VHCT program realizes on average a 90% cost savings, or up to 20 times less expensive than private industry. Private industry is also benefiting by being able to hire from a pool of well-trained, highly qualified heavy equipment operators. Cost of CDOW/CDOC projects in South Park range from $47,000-$148,000/year, with an average cost of $108,865/year. The total cost for eight years of construction is $979,785. Over 20 different habitat treatments have been implemented in South Park that fall within three functional categories: restoring river natural processes, reducing bank erosion, and enhancing aquatic habitat for sport fish. Treatments include the use of rock, stumps, logs and riparian plants for bank re-vegetation. CDOW personnel will work with the VHCT program again this year (FY 2007-2008), as well as in the future, continuing ongoing efforts aimed at restoring degraded stream habitats in South Park. However, a new research phase will begin that includes evaluation and monitoring of restored aquatic habitats, quantifying how various stream habitat improvements translate into positive changes in sport fish biomass, carrying capacity, improved angler opportunities, as well as addressing other complex research questions. i �EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ ii I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 A. Purpose of the Vocational Heavy Construction Technology Program....................1 B. Why Restore Rivers? ...............................................................................................1 II. VHCT PROGRAM BACKGROUND.................................................................................3 A. History......................................................................................................................3 B. Student Inmate Rehabilitation Program...................................................................5 III. VHCT PROGRAM RESULTS............................................................................................5 A. River Restoration. ....................................................................................................5 B. Restoration of Inmate Lives...................................................................................10 IV. PROGRAM COSTS AND BENEFITS .............................................................................10 A. Inmate Incarceration ..............................................................................................10 B. River Restoration Costs .........................................................................................10 IV. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................11 A. Background ............................................................................................................11 B. VHCT Program Expansion ....................................................................................11 C. Research Opportunities..........................................................................................12 Sport Fish Enhancement ........................................................................................12 Improvements in Angler Use..................................................................................12 D. Heavy Construction Equipment Needs..................................................................13 E. Conclusions............................................................................................................14 VI. CITATIONS ....................................................................................................................15 Appendix A: VHCT program informational brochure .................................................................16 ii �I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Vocational Heavy Construction Technology Program The Vocational Heavy Construction Technology (VHCT) program exists to provide student inmates with education and training that will equip them with the basic life and work skills necessary to obtain employment with a construction company once they have completed their sentences. This program is a cooperative program between the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) and the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA). The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has been the major customer of the program, particularly in South Park where natural river processes and aquatic habitats have been restored nearly nine miles of the South Platte River. B. Why Restore Rivers? Overall health of river aquatic habitats generally deteriorate because of poor land use in the watershed and riparian areas, accelerated stream bank erosion, poor water quality and stream flow regimes altered by water use such as irrigation diversions or transport of water via the stream for domestic purposes. When this occurs fish and aquatic habitats are degraded. Past land practices have caused many portions of the South Platte River to become degraded in South Park. Some of the major factors leading to the South Platte River’s current degraded state include historic mining operations, channelization for irrigation and to accommodate railroads, extermination of beaver, changes in the natural stream flow regime due to water impoundments and long-term affects due to overgrazing. River restoration projects can improve river bank stability, natural river processes and in-channel aquatic and fish habitats. Our river restoration experience and studies indicate the most severe cause of aquatic and trout habitat degradation can be traced to eroding stream banks and over width river channels. Our river restoration projects concentrated in these two areas, encouraging natural river processes. Completed channel improvements in South Park have nearly doubled adult and juvenile brown trout WUA (weighted useable area, Milhous et al. 1984). Trout biomass also increased almost 2.5 times with channel improvements. The increase in biomass was from new trout production and migration of fish into newly created habitat. In addition to these direct measures of success, the Statewide Fish Management Policy states several principles related to river restoration. 1. The long-term health of aquatic systems, including both habitat and fisheries, is paramount. 2. Providing recreational fishing opportunity will be an important objective of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1 �3. The protection of native species and their habitats is a priority. Thus, it follows that both the protection of existing healthy fisheries habitat as well as restoring degraded habitats back to a healthy state should be a high priority in regards to fisheries management. River restoration activities not only rehabilitate existing degraded aquatic habitats for fish, but also can potentially create new fish habitat where formerly no fish were present. The goal of river restoration work is to repair degraded aquatic habitats and thus influence the long-term health of aquatic systems. New recreational fishing opportunities are created either through rehabilitation of degraded fish habitat (marginal habitats), enhancement of aquatic habitat to address factors that limit fish populations, and/or creation of new aquatic fish habitat where there once was no habitat at all. Therefore, the Statewide Fish Management Policy provides a clear mandate for restoring streams and rivers in Colorado. In addition to the Statewide Fish Management Policy, the Colorado Division of Wildlife 20022007 Strategic Plan states the following under F-1, Fishery Habitat Quantity and Quality: “Healthy aquatic environments are essential to maintain healthy and viable fisheries, and critical for self-sustaining populations. The Division desires to protect and enhance the quality and quantity of aquatic habitats.” The desired achievement, F-1.1, is to “protect and enhance existing quantity and quality of habitats available to support fish populations.” One of the performance measures listed under this desired achievement is to “Quantify performance targets for in-stream flows, conservation pools, purchase or lease of water for aquatic habitat and habitat improvements.” Included under Recommended Means are two statements: 1. Protect the quality of habitat through working partnerships to achieve pollution abatement, environmental protection, and physical habitat improvements. 2. Take actions to minimize the negative impacts upon aquatic habitats resulting from human activity. The most recent statewide resident Angler Survey conducted in 2004 helps to direct priorities of aquatic habitat restoration. The following information is from the 2004 Colorado Angler Survey Summary Report (March 2006). The 2004 Angler Survey reaffirms the importance of trout fishing in Colorado since seventy-six percent of resident anglers list “trout” as their preferred fish. All of Colorado’s coldwater habitats, including seasonally cold waters, are important in meeting the statewide demand for trout fishing. Most of the restoration efforts conducted in Colorado have focused on coldwater habitats containing trout, including all work conducted in South Park by through the VHCT program. When queried about where anglers prefer to fish, the majority of anglers of all license types say they most often fish in mountain lakes, followed by coldwater streams and lakes in lower 2 �elevations. Almost all restoration work conducted through the VHCT program has involved restoration of coldwater streams. When licensed anglers were presented with a list of potential steps the CDOW could take to encourage them and other anglers to fish more, the top most frequently mentioned steps (in order of preference) by anglers were: 1. Improve the quality and size of fish. 2. Increase access to fishing locations on private land. 3. Improve fish habitat. 4. Stock more catchable trout. 5. Provide better information on where to fish. Thus, the angling public recognizes the importance of fish habitat improvement as a way to encourage themselves (and other anglers) to fish more. They even ranked fish habitat improvement as more important than increasing the numbers of stocked catchable trout. II. VHCT PROGRAM BACKGROUND A. History The VHCT program began during the mid 1990’s after Warren Diesslin, former Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility, and Eddie Kochman, former CDOW Aquatic Section Manager met several times, starting in 1997, and discussed a joint venture to rehabilitate degraded stream habitats in South Park, CO while simultaneously providing heavy construction training for inmates sincere about changing the direction of their lives. Tom Bowen coordinated and developed the new VHCT program with the support and approval of Warden Diesslin. While creating the program, Tom benefited from his past work experience, including working as a prison guard and later as a DOC vocational educational instructor with years of practical heavy construction experience. Tom had a vision for the program that would enable inmates to more effectively transition from prison back to society with the hope of a secure, well-paying job once they had completed the program. Tom’s belief was that out of such a program, lives would ultimately be changed and recidivism reduced. Tom located a willing program sponsor in the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA). Among other important functions, the CCA serves as an advisory board to assist students with job placement once they have completed the program. The VHCT program brought together two state agencies (CDOW and CDOC) with different missions and a major trade association, the CCA, in a rare partnership: to help redirect human lives while restoring river natural processes and aquatic habitats within driving distance of Buena Vista (see VHCT program brochure, Appendix A). 3 �The first CDOW/CDOC river restoration project was completed in 1998 (Figure 1). The CDOW paid for restoration materials including boulders, trees, and cobble; heavy equipment rentals; inmate salaries (at $.60 per hour) and provided on-the-job technical assistance. This first river restoration project using student inmates was highly successful in terms of enhancing aquatic habitat for sport fish and restoring natural river processes. More importantly when these inmates (about 20 students) were released from prison, they all found jobs in the construction industry and were successful in turning their lives around. Figure 1. Photo of VHCT inmates involved in the first restoration project in South Park, 1998. Based on the early success of river restoration projects through the VHCT program, former CDOW Director, John Mumma, earmarked $1,000,000 of capital construction monies for river restoration projects in South Park over a five-year period. CDOW has continued funding river restoration work in South Park through 2007. CDOW invested monies for restoration projects because of the significant cost savings resulting from this program (up to 90% cost savings) and because it allowed CDOW aquatic researchers (technical managers) opportunities to implement on-the-ground creative ideas without expensive change-order charges during construction. This project cost savings plus the valuable vocational training during river restoration projects made this a win-win situation for inmates, the CDOW, CDOC and subsequently the private sector contractors who hire heavy equipment operators. 4 �B. Student Inmate Rehabilitation Program Only student inmates sincere about changing their lives and lacking heavy equipment experience are admitted as candidates for the VHCT program. Student applicants must have a high school education or equivalent and be approved through an interview process with the Program Advisory Board (CCA). The program provides hands-on training related to operating heavy equipment and obtaining necessary experience to gain employment within the construction industry at a salary considerably higher than employment available to them prior to incarceration. On-the-job training includes heavy equipment operation, heavy equipment maintenance, surveying skills, blueprint reading, development of various additional construction job skills, teamwork development, inmate behavioral changes and leadership training. The VHCT program aids inmates in redirecting their lives once they are released from prison, as evidenced by the reduced recidivism rates of inmates successfully graduating from the program. The VHCT program is self supporting using the monies generated from contracts with customers, primarily public entities. The VHCT program works because it instills a work ethic which enables inmates to develop self confidence on the job and in their lives, and it helps students develop individual job skills. Alumni provide an important safety net to recent graduates during the first critical months after leaving prison. The program has also served to build interpersonal relationships as alumni assist recently released graduates by loaning them money to buy work clothing and safety equipment for their jobs. They also assist newly released students to find jobs. Once inmates graduate from the program and are released from prison, they live in a halfway house. CDOC program staff, VHCT program alumni, and CCA members work together to assist inmates with securing a job in the construction industry. Besides the CDOW, the VHCT program also contracts for natural resource construction projects with Federal agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service and public entities including the Denver Water Department, Trout Unlimited and Park County-Upper South Platte Coalition. III. A. VHCT PROGRAM RESULTS River Restoration A major component of the VHCT program has been to restore natural river processes and instream aquatic habitats. To date, student inmates have rehabilitated 8.7 miles of degraded aquatic stream habitats on CDOW properties located along the South Platte River in South Park (Table 1). Stream habitat rehabilitation utilized 22 different habitat treatments that fall within three functional categories: restoring river natural processes, reducing bank erosion, and enhancing aquatic habitat for sport fish (Table 2). Treatments include the use of rock, stumps, logs and riparian plants for bank revegetation. South Park was identified as an ideal location to implement the program because CDOW owns or leases over 25 miles of public fishing waters in 5 �the Upper South Platte River drainage and because of its close proximity to the Buena Vista Correctional Facility. Much of the South Platte River in South Park is degraded due to excessive livestock grazing and mining. Through FY 2006-2007, CDOW/CDOC river restoration projects in South Park have cost an average of $21/linear foot. A survey of six recent river restoration projects conducted in Colorado by private companies range in cost from $61-$390/linear foot (Table 3). The average cost for these private industry projects was $218/linear foot. Stream restoration cost savings utilizing the VHCT program result in an average cost savings of 90%, or up to 20 times less expensive than private industry. 6 �Table 1. CDOW stream restoration projects completed using the VHCT program including year of project completion, restoration location, county, length of stream restored, costs, major treatments implemented, land ownership, and primary funding sources. Length (miles) Project Cost (total/per Major Treatments linear ft) Ownership Funding Park .2 $97,850 / $92.66 Colo. State Parks CDOW/Cap. Const. Park .7 $139,610 / $37.77 Denver Water Dept. 2000 South Fork of South Platte River Threemile Creek Park .5 $138,000 / $52.27 DWD/CDOW Cap. Const. CDOW/Cap Const. 200l South Platte River Park .9 $148,000 / $31.14 2002 South Fork of South Platte River South Fork of South Platte River Park 1.2 $146,000 / $12.57 Park 1.0 2003 South Platte River Park 1.0 $128,725 / $24.38 2004 South Platte River Park .3 $47,000 / $29.67 2005 South Fork of South Platte River Park 1.7 2005 Tarryall Creek Park .6 2006 South Fork of Middle South Platte River Park .6 Year Stream County 1998 South Platte River 1999 2002 Total All Streams $84,000 / $6.92 $50,600 / $15.97 Park 8.7 $979,785 / $21.33 7 Reduce channel width, excavate pools, boulder & log placement Excavate new channel, Boulder and log placement Constructed new flood channel for Threemile Creek, dam and retention lake. Reduce channel width, excavate pools, boulder & log placement reduced channel width, excavate pools reduced channel width, excavate pools , boulder & log placement reduce channel width, excavate pools, boulder & log placement reduce channel width, excavate pools, boulder placement Installed streamflow structures and developed existing channels, excavate pools Reduce channel width, excavate pools, willow & log placement Reduce channel width, excavate pools, boulder & log placement > 20 total treatments applied CDOW/Lower Spinney SWA CDOW/Lower Spinney SWA CDOW/Cap Const. CDOW/ Knight/Imler SWA CDOW/ Badger Basin SWA CDOW/Cap. Const. CDOW/Cap. Const. Aurora/Colo. State Park CDOW/Cap. Const. CDOW/Lower Spinney SWA CDOW/Cap. Const. CDOW/Upper Spinney SWA CDOW/Cap Const. CDOW/ Tarryall SWA CDOW/Cap Const. CDOW/ Badger Basin SWA CDOW/Cap Const. - - �Table 2. Benefits assigned to river channel and aquatic/trout habitat treatments used in restoration projects. Treatments to Improve Natural River Processes Benefits River Channel Treatment Natural processes Reduces bank erosion Aquatic habitats Reduce river channel width Primary Secondary Primary Pool excavation Primary Secondary Primary Elevate riffle substrate Primary Limited Primary Woody overhead trout cover Primary Secondary Primary Riparian vegetation Primary Primary Secondary Riparian bench Primary Primary Secondary Woody Material Treatments Used to Reduce River Bank Erosion Benefits River Bank Treatments Natural processes Reduces bank erosion Aquatic habitats Log spur Secondary Primary Secondary Log vane Secondary Primary Secondary Horizontal log Secondary Primary Primary River bank root wad Secondary Primary Primary Channel-edge log/root wad Secondary Primary Primary Boulder Treatments Used to Reduce River Bank Erosion Benefits River Channel Treatments Natural processes Reduces bank erosion Aquatic habitats Cross vane Secondary Primary Primary Single boulder deflector Secondary Primary Secondary Hard point Secondary Primary Limited Boulder J hook Secondary Primary Primary Boulder vane Secondary Primary Secondary Treatments to Enhance Mid-Channel Aquatic and Trout Habitats Benefits Aquatic Habitat Treatments Natural processes Reduces bank erosion Aquatic habitats Random boulders Limited Limited Primary Boulder clusters Rock garden Stumps Mid-channel root wads Off bank root wads Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Secondary 8 Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary �Table 3. Cost comparison of six major river restoration projects from Colorado with river restoration costs using the VHCT program including stream name, river restoration collaborators, miles of river restored, restoration cost, and reasons for restoration. Stream name Blue River River restoration company/ organization Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), Town of Silverthorne, T.U., National Forest Foundation, CDOW, and Denver Water Miles restored 0.6 Cost per linear foot $61 Little Snake River Dave Rosgen, Wildland Hydrology 10.5 $90 San Miguel River (Phase I) Town of Telluride (Public Works) 0.7 $200 Eagle River (Edwards Eagle River restoration) Eagle River Watershed Council 1.6 $236 Lefthand Creek CDOW, City of Longmont (Public Works), Parks and Open Space, CDOT, Longmont Power and Communications, Carter & Burgess, Duran Excavating, Aquatic and Wetlands Company, and Property Owners 0.9 $333 0.4 $390 8.7 $21 West Ten-mile Creek South Platte River CDOW/CDOC (VHCT program) 9 Reason for restoration Enhance aquatic habitats and channel reconstruction Enhance aquatic habitats, channel reconstruction, and riparian revegetation Restoration included: creation of an instream sedimentation basin, implementing bank stabilization treatments, creating and improving wetlands, developing riparian habitats, enhancing aquatic habitat, and placing instream hydraulic structures. Enhance aquatic habitats, channel reconstruction, and riparian revegetation Channel reconstruction, floodplain reconnection, and riparian revegetation Channel reconstruction and riparian revegetation Restore natural river processes, reduce bank erosion, enhance aquatic habitats �B. Restoration of Inmate Lives Another part of the program’s mission is to develop student inmate work ethics necessary to succeed in the industry as well as society. The VHCT program fosters an environment that promotes integrity, trust, responsibility and confidence. The program encourages changes in behavior, changes in the way students think and helps them to establish priorities and goals necessary to get a “fresh start” in life. Inmates receive a minimum of 18 months of on-the-job training in heavy equipment and maintenance. To date, 127 student inmates have graduated from the VHCT program. Only 15 students have returned to prison because they violated program rules. The program recidivism rate is 12% compared to a 60% overall recidivism rate in the Colorado penal system. A major accomplishment that has taken place with this program is the mentoring of recent VHCT program graduates from VHCT alumni. This is particularly true for those students when they reach the halfway house. Typical salary range for program graduates is $15.00-$18.00/hour with an annual salary of $40,000-$50,000 (including overtime wages). For example, one program graduate is now a project superintendent in Denver for a large construction company and has an annual salary of $72,000/year. Another graduate started his own roofing company in Montrose and hires inmates on release from local jails. IV. PROGRAM COSTS AND BENEFITS A. Inmate Incarceration On average, each inmate returning to prison costs taxpayers about $35,000 per year. The breakeven point of a $600,000 expenditure (cost for four pieces of heavy equipment) would be reached when 17 former inmates were returned to prison for one year. The VHCT program has a 12% recidivism rate compared to 60% for the statewide penal system. A one-time cost of $600,000 over a 10-year period appears to be a sound investment for this program because it has reduced recidivism by 48%. The program has graduated 112 inmates that are now tax-paying citizens living crime-free lives. B. River Restoration Costs River restoration projects completed by this CDOW/CDOC program have provided savings ranging from 31-90% over private industry costs. The actual improvement to the fishery, in terms of increased biomass per mile or increase in the proportion of quality-sized fish has not been well-estimated or studied. However, the number of angler hours that restored river segments provide over un-restored segments is greatly increased (personal communication, Jeff Spohn CDOW fisheries biologist). This change in the total number of angler hours (recreation opportunity) from before and after river restoration projects has also not been well-studied and only weak data exist to document changes in angler use in these areas. However, anglers have expressed high satisfaction with their experience in fishing restored segments of the South Platte River. 10 �IV. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS A. Background During the winter and spring of 2007, committee members met on several occasions to discuss VHCT program needs and recommendations for the future. The committee identified the following conditions as necessary to ensure the VHCT program’s continued ongoing success. In addition to the VHCT program’s contributions to restoring portions of the South Platte River, CDOW research will focus on quantifying how habitat improvement work has increased angling opportunities, increased the level of angler use and satisfaction, and how specific habitat improvement treatments perform over time. B. VHCT Program Expansion If the program owns its own heavy equipment, the cost savings could be passed on to other state agencies like Colorado State Parks and Colorado Bureau of Mines and Reclamation. The Aurora Water Department and Superfund sites in the Leadville area may also have an interest in the services provided by this program. The program could also potentially be expanded to other locations in Colorado that have candidate river restoration sites nearby a state correctional facility (Rifle or Delta). While this paper focuses on aquatic program benefits, there are similar opportunities for terrestrial programs to benefit from the VHCT program. The CDOC facility at Sterling could be a prime example where medium security inmates can receive similar training. A small program currently exists at Sterling, but CDOW has not yet contracted for services. Future projects in South Park will continue to focus on the most degraded sections of the South Platte River. A total of 7.2 miles of degraded river segments have been identified as candidate sites that would benefit from CDOW/CDOC river restoration projects (Table 5). 11 �Table 5. Prioritized South Park stream channels segments and projects that would benefit from CDOW/DOC restoration projects. Stream Length (mile) Primary Treatment 2.5 1.0 Reduce channel width, Excavate pools Reduce channel width, Excavate pools Middle Fork/ South Platte River South Fork of South Platte River South Fork of South Platte River South Platte River 1.0 South Platte River 1.0 Tarryall Creek (upstream from Tarryall Res.) Tarryall Creek (Upper SWA segment) Total .5 C. 1.0 .2 7.2 Reduce channel width, Excavate pools Reduce channel width, Excavate pools Reduce channel width, Excavate pools Design new stream channel & irrigation diversion Design trout passage around an irrigation diversion structure - Project Description Upper Spinney SWA/Lower end of Badger Basin perpetual easement River reach upstream of Badger Basin HQ - Lower end of Badger Basin perpetual easement Badger Basin perpetual easement adjacent to Hartsel town site Lower Spinney SWA (Dream Stream) River segment downstream of Park Co. Rd 59. Construct new stream channel and irrigation diversion. Construct trout passage structure over irrigation diversion - Research Opportunites Sport Fish Enhancement Future research opportunities associated with river restoration work in the South Platte include the following: a comprehensive study that would seek to quantify how habitat improvements have increased carrying capacity in streams, increased sport fish biomass, changed the number of quality-sized sport fish and assisted in addressing limiting factors/conditions that might otherwise preclude sport fish enhancement (in terms of total biomass). Determining whether particular habitat treatments are more appropriate than others to maximize the benefits to sport fish, whether particular habitat treatments would favor rainbow trout over brown trout (or favor one particular fish species over another, including non-desirable species). Developing a comprehensive plan for monitoring stream habitat improvements over time and developing modeling techniques that would assist in addressing these questions (simulating various habitat treatment scenarios under varying flow conditions, etc.). Improvements in Angler Use Another research objective would be to quantify how habitat improvements increase recreational angling use and increase the total number of angler hours per stream mile. A program creel 12 �study may be appropriate to document angler use of restored versus un-restored stream segments. This is important in determining how habitat improvement projects might increase angler use annually, an important economic incentive to consider when planning future restoration projects. D. Heavy Construction Equipment Needs Field CDOC staff and CDOW biologists have identified four pieces of heavy construction equipment that are needed to insure the program’s continued success. Currently, the most expensive part of the river restoration projects (annually) is heavy construction equipment rentals (Figure 3). Specific equipment needs include an excavator with an attached hydraulic thumb, a front end loader, a backhoe with attached hydraulic thumb and a road grader. The estimated life of this equipment could be as high as 10 years. The total cost for these four pieces of heavy equipment would be approximately $600,000, depending upon price quotes and contributions by the construction industry (Table 4). Excavator w/ thumb Front end loader (tracked) Backhoe w/ thumb Motor grader Dump truck Cobble Fuel Labor Figure 3. Typical costs associated with 3 month restoration project (based on FY 05-06 values). Cost percentages include the following: heavy equipment rental = 81%, treatment materials = 9.5%, fuel = 8.5% and labor = 1%. 13 �Table 4. Equipment costs (purchase and lease) for 4 pieces of heavy construction equipment necessary to perform stream restoration projects. Heavy equipment Annual lease Purchase Excavator w/ attached hydraulic thumb $68,100 $189,750 Front-end loader $58,000 $125,400 Road grader $58,000 $200,000 Backhoe w/ attached hydraulic thumb $36,000 $89,825 Total $220,100 $604,925 If the VHCT program had its own heavy equipment, seat time for inmates would not be limited by the short-time period that heavy equipment is leased. Inmates could spend more time learning operational and maintenance skills as well as developing additional skills if the equipment was available on-site and on a year-round basis. E. Conclusions The VHCT program consists of a rare partnership between the CDOC, CDOW, and private industry. The program has endured for nearly 10 years in spite of numerous obstacles and challenges. Each party involved realizes a tremendous benefit from this relationship, as well as society as a whole. The CDOC ultimately benefits by successfully rehabilitating inmates and lowering the overall recidivism rate for prisoners in the Colorado penal system, the CDOW benefits by improving degraded stream habitat and increasing angling opportunity and satisfaction completed at a fraction of the expense required if using private contractors, the private industry benefits from a pool of well-trained individuals from which to hire from, and society as a whole benefits from the program when inmates are successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated into society as law-abiding, tax-paying citizens holding down a steady job. A unique program such as this deserves the attention and financial support necessary to ensure its continued success. 14 �VI. CITATIONS Milhous, R. T., D. L. Wegner, and T. Waddle. 1984. User’s Guide to the Physical Habitat Simulation System. Instream Flow Information Paper 11. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS81/43 Revised. [475 pp.] 15 �Appendix A. 16 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vocational Heavy Construction Technology program: a comprehensive plan including program needs and future directions Description An account of the resource In 1997 Warren Diesslin, former Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility, and Eddie Kochman, former Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Aquatic Section Manager, met and discussed a joint venture to rehabilitate degraded stream habitats while providing heavy construction training for inmates sincere about changing the direction of their lives. These men conceived and supported the vision of what is now known as the Vocational Heavy Construction Technology (VHCT) program. Tom Bowen, once a prison guard and later a Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) vocational educational instructor with years of practical heavy construction experience, developed and coordinated this program with the support and approval of Warden Diesslin. Tom contacted the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA) and they agreed to serve as a program sponsor. The CCA has since become an integral part of the program, serving as the advisory board and assisting student inmates with job placement once they have successfully completed the program. Through the VHCT program, two state agencies (CDOW and CDOC) and private industry have formed a rare partnership with different missions: to help redirect human lives while restoring river natural processes and aquatic habitats within driving distance of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kondratieff, Matthew C. Subject The topic of the resource Habitat restoration Colorado Department of Corrections Extent The size or duration of the resource. 19 pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2007-04 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/6c405caa4a7b73c2649d67c5d8d8ee05.pdf 2d23cef3219f0da39deb7d9f3a4bc7e4 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Upper Arkansas River instream habitat restoration project: 2020 annual site assessment Description An account of the resource Monitoring activities to evaluate restoration effectiveness for the upper Arkansas River Habitat Restoration Project were conducted by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and contractors during 2020 and 2021. Efforts were primarily focused on data analysis and publication of results for monitoring targets, including fish populations, riparian vegetation, benthic macroinvertebrates, instream habitat structures, and water quality. Some fish population, benthic macroinvertebrate, riparian vegetation and habitat metrics improved following restoration, although not all metrics have achieved target goals. Significant improvements in Brown Trout Salmo trutta density, biomass and condition were encouraging, but apparent declines in quality trout could be indicative of increased competition or limited forage. The abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates increased, but not to the level of project goals. Woody riparian vegetation increased significantly, and encroachment of riparian vegetation has outpaced bank erosion, which suggests that bank stability has improved and the channel is moving towards dynamic equilibrium. Multiple metrics indicate that ecosystem health within the California Gulch Superfund Site continues to improve. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richer, Eric E. Subject The topic of the resource Upper Arkansas River Habitat restoration Extent The size or duration of the resource. 1277 pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2021-03-31 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/07ad7bcd5462310848405038fd148c12.pdf 83d559d353434e85da88867cb4dfde39 PDF Text Text DRAFT PROPOSED Upper Colorado River Headwaters Project Monitoring Plan Prepared by Colorado Parks and Wildlife March 19, 2018 1 �Table of Contents Chapter 1: Project Overview 4 1.1 Introduction 4 1.2 Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project 4 1.3 Kemp Breeze State Wildlife Area (SWA) Habitat Restoration Project 6 1.4 Irrigators of Lands in the Vicinity of Kremmling (ILVK) Project 8 1.5 Monitoring Overview 9 Chapter 2: Fish Populations 2.1 10 Introduction 10 Sportfish Evaluations 10 Native Fish Evaluations 12 2.2 Methods 13 Population Estimates for Trout Fry 13 Population Estimates for Adult Trout 14 Population Estimates for Mottled Sculpin 14 2.3 Study Sites 14 Trout Fry 14 Adult Trout 15 Mottled Sculpin 15 2.4 Monitoring Schedule 18 Trout Fry 18 Adult Trout 18 Mottled Sculpin 18 Chapter 3: Benthic Macroinvertebrates 18 3.1 Introduction 18 3.2 Methods 20 3.3 Study Sites 20 3.4 Monitoring Schedule 21 Chapter 4: Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Geomorphology 21 4.1 Introduction 21 4.2 Methods 22 2 �Hydrology 22 Hydraulics 22 Geomorphology 23 4.3 Study Sites 24 4.4 Monitoring Schedule 24 Chapter 5: Monitoring Budget 24 References 25 Appendix A: Proposed Geomorphic Monitoring of the Connectivity Channel 28 A.1 Introduction 28 A.2 Methods 28 Hydrology 28 Hydraulics 29 Geomorphology 29 A.3 Study Sites 30 A.4 Monitoring Schedule 30 A.5 References 30 Appendix B: Proposed Fish Movement Study 32 B.1 Introduction 32 B.2 Methods 33 B.3 Study Sites 36 B.4 Monitoring Schedule 37 B.5 References 38 3 �Chapter 1: Project Overview 1.1 Introduction In December 2016, a group of partners including American Rivers, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD), Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), Denver Water, Grand County, Irrigators of Lands in the Vicinity of Kremmling (ILVK), Municipal Subdistrict of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water), Trout Unlimited, and the Upper Colorado River Alliance was awarded $7.75 million by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) through their Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) for the Upper Colorado River Headwaters Project (Headwaters Project). The Headwaters Project is comprised of three endeavors within Grand County that will collectively restore fish and wildlife habitat, and improve water quality and agricultural water management on a regional scale. The RCPP funding will be utilized to focus on two specific project components: 1) reconnecting the Colorado River upstream and downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir (referenced as the Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project); and 2) restoration of the Colorado River channel to be resilient to hydrological modifications, while sustaining agriculture, and aquatic and riparian habitat (referenced as the Irrigators of Lands in the Vicinity of Kremmling Project). The third endeavor, the Kemp Breeze State Wildlife Area (SWA) Habitat Restoration Project, is expected to be funded by the partners, and other interested parties. These three project components are further described in the following sections. 1.2 Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project The Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project was selected among several alternatives evaluated to improve degraded habitat of the Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir (Tetra Tech 2015). This project will create a new river channel around Windy Gap Reservoir, reconnecting the Colorado River upstream and downstream of the reservoir, while simultaneously preserving water storage for Northern Water’s municipal water supply. The new channel will be designed to mimic natural conditions, including increasing habitat heterogeneity with the addition of riffles, pools, and runs that accommodate upstream and downstream passage of juvenile and adult life stages of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii). Reconnection will also expand available wildlife habitat, reestablish sediment transport, and improve water quality conditions downstream of the project area. The Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project will be primarily managed by Northern Water, in collaboration with other partners, and will entail a three-phase approach to plan, design, and implement/monitor/maintain within a five to six year period, beginning in 2017. The details and projected timeline are described below in Table 1.1. 4 �Table 1.1. Proposed process and schedule for the Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project. Step 1. Planning Tasks Timeline Identify goals and objectives 2017-2018 Evaluate goals and limiting factors 2017-2018 Develop watershed plan and NEPA 2017-2018 Easement and ROW 2018-2019 Tasks Timeline Step 2. Design 3. Permitting Survey and analysis 2017-2019 Evaluate alternatives 2017-2019 Conceptual design 2017-2019 Preliminary design 2017-2019 Final design 2017-2019 404 permit and others 2017-2020 Step 4. Implementation Tasks Timeline Contract documents 2019-2020 Construction 2020-2021 Baseline 1980-2020 Implementation 2020-2021 Effectiveness 2021-2026 6. Adaptive Management Maintenance 2021-2026 5. Monitoring Information dissemination 5 2021-2026 �1.3 Kemp Breeze State Wildlife Area (SWA) Habitat Restoration Project The original “Habitat Project” was designed in coordination with Northern Water to address concerns raised by CPW and other stakeholders regarding conditions of the aquatic ecosystem in the Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. The goal of the Habitat Project is to design and implement a stream restoration program to improve the existing aquatic environment in the Colorado River from the Windy Gap diversion to the lower terminus of CPW’s Kemp Breeze State Wildlife Area (SWA) by returning the river to a more functional system considering current and future hydrology. The intent is for Denver Water and Northern Water to join with CPW and other stakeholders in a cooperative effort to identify and address desired improvements to the stream environment. To guide project implementation, the Denver Board of Water Commissioners and CPW signed an Intergovernmental Grant Agreement (IGA) to implement the Habitat Project on March 26, 2014. Northern Water and CPW signed a parallel IGA on April 3, 2014. Though the IGAs describe the large-scale Habitat Project (including a project area of approximately 16.7 miles of the Colorado River), the 2017 NRCS RCPP Headwaters Project will focus entirely on CPW’s Kemp Breeze SWA Habitat Restoration Project. This project area will include a smaller scale reach (approximately 2.7 miles) contained within the larger geographical area of the overall Habitat Project, where CPW can complete planning, design, and implementation of the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project within the five to six year time frame required by the NRCS. The lowermost segment within the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project includes the Williams Fork River, the largest tributary in the project area. The Colorado River through the Kemp Breeze SWA is owned almost entirely by the State of Colorado, and is likely the most heavily fished section of the Colorado River in Grand County. Improving habitat conditions within the Kemp Breeze SWA reach will include defining the thalweg, targeting channel narrowing through point-bar enhancement, de-armoring riffles, and increasing habitat heterogeneity. This section will likely also benefit from some of the most intensive channel work required in the largescale Habitat Project upstream. The Kemp Breeze SWA segment has been identified as the highest priority for habitat improvement when compared to seven other reaches within the Habitat Project. The rationale for this assessment was based on several factors, including the need for restoration, increased public fishing access, lack of complex landowner agreements, proximity to Windy Gap Reservoir, and preliminary cost estimates. The location of the Kemp Breeze SWA as the segment farthest away from potential unknown impacts of the proposed Windy Gap connectivity channel was a huge consideration in the prioritization process. Construction of the proposed Windy Gap connectivity channel will likely be on a similar schedule as the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project. 6 �Table 1.2. Proposed process and schedule for the Kemp Breeze SWA Habitat Restoration Project*. Step 1. Planning 2. Prioritize actions Tasks Identify goals and objectives 2017-2018 Evaluate goals and limiting factors 2017-2018 Site selection 2018-2019 Step 3. Design 4. Permitting Tasks 6. Monitoring 7. Adaptive Management Timeline Survey and analysis 2018-2019 Evaluate alternatives 2018-2019 Conceptual design 2018-2019 Preliminary design 2019-2020 Final design 2019-2020 404 permit 2020 Floodplain permit 2020 Landowner agreements 2020 Step 5. Implementation Timeline Tasks Timeline Contract documents 2019-2020 Construction 2020-2021 Baseline 1980-2020 Implementation 2021-2023 Effectiveness 2023-2028 Maintenance 2023-2028 Information dissemination 2023-2028 * This table reflects implementation of habitat restoration on the Kemp Breeze SWA only, and not the entire Habitat Project. 7 �The Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project will be primarily managed by CPW in collaboration with the large-scale Habitat Project Stream Team, which includes members from the CRWCD, Denver Water, Grand County, Northern Water, Trout Unlimited, and other parties including but not limited to private landowners. The restoration process will entail a three-phase approach to plan, design, and implement/monitor/maintain the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project within a five to six year period, beginning in 2017. The details and projected timeline are described below in Table 1.2. 1.4 Irrigators of Lands in the Vicinity of Kremmling (ILVK) Project In general, most Irrigators of Lands in the Vicinity of Kremmling (ILVK) experience difficulty in retrieving or using water during low flow periods in late summer, especially during drought periods. Low water level creates a lack of positive pressure in ditch heads, making irrigation systems more difficult to operate. Measures to address these issues, including the installation of pumps and cobble dams, have failed to fully address the problem, and have resulted in several unintended consequences, including increased soil erosion and instream habitat modification. Eleven private ranches are participating in the ILVK Project by improving the Colorado River channel through a series of practices utilizing the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). These practices will create and install innovative in-stream structures designed to improve water levels for irrigation, while rebuilding riffle and pool structure to enhance river habitat. Structures include grade control riffles, riffle vanes, sustainable habitat riffles, point bar creations, habitat structures, and pool enhancements. Several pilot projects within the ILVK area have already been completed, and the results to date indicate success beyond expectations. The ILVK Project will be primarily managed by Trout Unlimited in collaboration with other partners, and will entail a three-phase approach to plan, design, and implement/monitor/maintain within a five to six year period, beginning in 2017. The details and projected timeline are described below in Table 1.3. Table 1.3. Proposed process and schedule for the ILVK Project. Step 1. Planning 2. Producer outreach and recruitment Tasks Timeline Identify goals and objectives 2017-2018 Evaluate goals and limiting factors 2017-2018 Site selection 2017-2018 8 �Step 3. Producer participant selection; contracting with producers 4. Design 5. Permitting Tasks Survey and analysis 2018-2019 Evaluate alternatives 2018-2019 Landowner agreements and contracts 2018-2019 Conceptual design 2017-2019 Preliminary design 2017-2018 Final design 2018-2019 404 permit and others 2018-2019 Step Tasks Timeline 6. Implementation Construction 2019-2022 7. Monitoring Baseline 2017-2019 Implementation 2019-2022 Effectiveness 2019-2024 Maintenance 2019-2024 Information dissemination 2019-2024 8. Adaptive Management 1.5 Timeline Monitoring Overview The NRCS requests a Monitoring Plan be developed as part of the RCPP process. This document has been developed by CPW in collaboration with the other partners to comply with this requirement for the Headwaters Project. The Monitoring Plan is considered a “living document” with the flexibility to incorporate necessary schedule updates and other relevant modifications as the Headwaters Project proceeds. Multiple partners are completing various monitoring activities (primarily of the chemical and physical attributes of the upper Colorado River drainage) related to their respective Headwaters Project components and permitting requirements. Those efforts, some of which may be directly connected to the Headwaters Project, are not included within this document. Rather, this plan 9 �focuses on the monitoring that CPW has committed to with regard to labor and equipment within the RCPP. Though monitoring is included for each of the three components of the Headwaters Project, most of these efforts by CPW will be related to the Windy Gap Connectivity Channel and Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project, with limited fish monitoring within the ILVK Project area. Pre-project (baseline) and post-project evaluations are incorporated within the plan. Specifically, CPW will primarily be concentrating on fish populations (Chapter 2), benthic macroinvertebrates (Chapter 3), and hydrology, hydraulics, and geomorphology (Chapter 4) of the upper Colorado River. CPW will evaluate elements included within Chapter 4 with an emphasis on the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project; hydraulic modeling, sediment transport surveys, and assessment of the Windy Gap connectivity channel can be investigated should supplementary funds be secured or if monitoring priorities are changed during discussions with project stakeholders. Thus, CPW has included Proposed Geomorphic Monitoring of the Windy Gap connectivity channel in Appendix A. Additionally, CPW has developed a Proposed Fish Movement Study in Appendix B that may also be pursued should additional funding and staff time become available. Chapter 2: Fish Populations 2.1 Introduction Sportfish Evaluations Prior to the introduction of whirling disease, caused by the parasite Myxobolus cerebralis, in the upper Colorado River, adult Colorado River Rainbow Trout (CRR) had an average abundance of 689 fish/mile while adult Brown Trout averaged 385 fish/mile (Nehring and Thompson 2001), resulting in a ratio of Rainbow Trout to Brown Trout of 2:1. Rainbow Trout fry abundance ranged from 9,012 to 13,518 fry/mile of stream bank and Brown Trout fry ranged from 4,184 to 9,173 fry/mile (Walker and Nehring 1995). Traditionally, eggs were harvested by CPW from this wild CRR brood stock, reared in state hatcheries, and used to stock many rivers across the state. However, the CRR was one of the most susceptible strains of Rainbow Trout to whirling disease, developing over 150,000 myxospores/fish (Fetherman et al. 2012). Myxobolus cerebralis was unintentionally introduced to the upper Colorado River in the 1980s when privately-reared Rainbow Trout previously exposed to M. cerebralis were stocked into three private water bodies located upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. Fish downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir tested positive for M. cerebralis in 1988, and a subsequent decline in the younger age classes of Rainbow Trout was observed in the early 1990s (Nehring 2006). While several reasons for the declines were investigated (Schisler et al. 1999a; Schisler et al. 1999b; Schisler et al. 2000), exposure to M. cerebralis was determined to be the primary cause for the disappearance of the younger age classes (Nehring and Thompson 2001). In an effort to restore the Rainbow Trout fishery, tens of thousands of CRR were stocked annually between 1994 and 2008. Despite these repeated stocking efforts, the CRR exhibited low survival and little recruitment success, resulting 10 �in a Rainbow Trout abundance that was approximately 90% lower than the Rainbow Trout abundance observed prior to the establishment of M. cerebralis (Nehring 2006). Whirling disease-resistant Rainbow Trout were first introduced to the upper Colorado River in 2006, with an additional introduction occurring in 2010, using a strain of Rainbow Trout known as the HxC. The HxC is a cross between the whirling disease-resistant, but domesticated Rainbow Trout strain known as the German Rainbow (GR), or Hofer, strain and the CRR. The HxC cross was chosen for these introductions because they exhibited resistance characteristics similar to the GR strain (Schisler et al. 2006; Fetherman et al. 2012), and were capable of attaining critical swimming velocities similar to those of the CRR strain (Fetherman et al. 2011). Larger Rainbow Trout (> 6.69 inches TL) were used in these first introductions because larger fish were: 1) less susceptible to M. cerebralis infection (Ryce et al. 2005), and 2) less susceptible to Brown Trout predation. However, despite these potential survival advantages, the apparent survival rate of the introduced HxC cross over the entire study period between 2006 and 2011 was estimated to be only 0.7%, and the adult Rainbow Trout population in the upper Colorado River continued to decline. Although survival of the introduced HxC cross was low, these fish did reproduce in the river, resulting in genetic shifts in the fry population toward GR-cross fish and a decrease in average myxospore count of the fry population over time (Fetherman et al. 2014). One potential reason for the low survival in the introduced HxC cross was the length of time these fish were held in the hatchery to reach the larger sizes needed prior to stocking. It was thought that the longer these fish were held in the hatchery, the more they acted like the domestic GR rather than the wild CRR upon stocking. Stocking fish as fry was thought to potentially counteract these effects because fish would be held in the hatchery for a shorter period of time prior to stocking. The HxC cross was first stocked into the Colorado River as fry in 2013, with additional stocking occasions in 2014 and 2015. Since fry stocking began, survival and recruitment from fry to adult life stages have increased in the upper Colorado River, and the adult Rainbow Trout population has exponentially increased from a low of three adult fish/mile in 2013 to 165 adult fish/mile in 2017. In recent years (2016 and 2017), fry stocking has continued using pure GR strain fish since these fish exhibit similar apparent survival rates to the HxC cross, and to reduce resistance issues due to backcrossing and outcrossing that could occur when using the HxC cross for Rainbow Trout reintroductions (Avila et al. In review). The objective of this project component is to re-establish a wild, and ultimately, self-sustaining Rainbow Trout population in the upper Colorado River. A variety of stocking techniques, including manipulating size-at-stocking and strain stocked, have been used to achieve this objective. The goal of the fry stocking in recent years has been to determine if stocking GR and GR-cross fish as fry increases post-stocking survival, and recruitment to the adult Rainbow Trout population, and if overall M. cerebralis infection prevalence and severity decreases with an increase in abundance of whirling disease-resistant Rainbow Trout. 11 �Native Fish Evaluations Sculpin are an ecologically important part of freshwater ecosystems because they can occur in high densities in depauperate coldwater mountain streams (Adams and Schmetterling 2007). Additionally, sculpin can exert a large influence on aquatic food webs through their diverse trophic positions. The Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) is common in coldwater western Colorado streams where they occur in sympatry with important sport and native trout species. Mottled Sculpin prefer cool, high gradient mountain streams with cobble habitat and are rarely found in stream reaches where substrate is embedded with silt (Sigler and Miller 1973; Woodling 1985; Nehring et al. 2011). As such, their habitat preferences for cobble substrate and high quality riffle-run habitat make Mottled Sculpin a good ecological indicator of stream health (Adams and Schmetterling 2007; Nehring et al. 2011). Dams are known to drastically alter river habitat and have many diverse effects on fish and invertebrate habitat and populations (Ward and Stanford 1979). Dams can radically alter stream temperature and substrate composition, which are considered the primary influences of sculpin habitat suitability (Scott and Crossman 1973). In the upper Colorado River basin, stream reaches below many dams and water projects have reduced the density of Mottled Sculpin (Nehring et al. 2011). The decline in sculpin distribution appears to be both temporally and spatially related to impoundments. Mottled Sculpin were common in the main stem Colorado River before Windy Gap Reservoir was built, but are rare or absent after construction (Erickson 1983; Nehring et al. 2011). A survey conducted in 1975-1976 on the Colorado River before Windy Gap Reservoir was constructed documented Mottled Sculpin at all sampling sites (Dames and Moore 1977). In 2010, a project investigating the sculpin distribution and density throughout the upper Colorado River revealed that sculpin density was on average 15 times higher in sites upstream of impoundments than downstream (Nehring et al. 2011). In the main stem of the Colorado River between Windy Gap Reservoir and the confluence with the Williams Fork River, a single Mottled Sculpin was encountered in 3,200 ft of river sampled by electrofishing. This study attributed the decline of Mottled Sculpin in the upper Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir to habitat and flow changes associated with the reservoir. Surveys conducted by CPW in 2013 confirmed these patterns, finding that sculpin were common upstream of impoundments on the upper Colorado River, but rare or absent downstream (Kowalski 2014). As part of this study, three sites were sampled on the Colorado River between Windy Gap Reservoir and the Williams Fork River confluence, and no Mottled Sculpin were found. While Mottled Sculpin were once common downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir, and remain common upstream, habitat alterations associated with the reservoir seem to have reduced the habitat quality in the river to a point where viable populations are rare or nonexistent. Restoring connectivity and addressing habitat limitations associated with the flow and sediment regimes should improve conditions for this important native fish in the upper Colorado River. The objective of this segment of the project is to document how the Windy Gap connectivity channel 12 �affects the distribution and density of Mottled Sculpin in the Colorado River downstream of the Fraser River confluence. Goals ● Re-establish a wild, self-sustaining Rainbow Trout population in the upper Colorado River ● Re-establish a wild, self-sustaining population of native Mottled Sculpin in the Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir Objectives ● Evaluate the effects of fish stocking techniques on Rainbow Trout post-stocking survival and recruitment to the adult population ● Determine if the overall M. cerebralis infection prevalence and severity decreases with an increase in abundance of whirling disease-resistant Rainbow Trout ● Document the distribution and density of Mottled Sculpin over time in the Colorado River downstream of the confluence with the Fraser River 2.2 Methods Population Estimates for Trout Fry GR and GR-cross fish are stocked by CPW as post-swim-up fry in the margins of the river between Hitching Post Bridge and either the Chimney Rock Ranch diversion structure near the confluence with Drowsy Water Creek or the Sheriff Ranch, dependent upon annual fry availability in July. In previous years, 70,000 to 250,000 fry have been stocked into this section of the river. Fry are loaded into a well-aerated tank on a raft and walked or slowly floated downriver and evenly distributed throughout optimal fry habitats on both sides of the river. Seven fry sites are sampled in the Colorado River annually by CPW to obtain fry abundance estimates, genetic composition, and for myxospore enumeration (see Table 2.1, Sections 2.3 and 2.4, and Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). All seven fry sites are sampled at least once prior to fry stocking to determine if wild reproduction of Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout has occurred. Genetic samples in the form of a caudal fin clip (top lobe) are collected from all wild Rainbow Trout fry encountered to determine the percentage of GR genes in the wild fry population. The same seven fry sites are sampled once a month from July through October to determine abundance and survival of wild Brown Trout and stocked Rainbow Trout fry in the Chimney Rock Ranch/Sheriff Ranch reach, or wild Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout fry in the sites downstream of Byers Canyon. Three-pass depletion population estimates are completed using two, Smith-Root LR-24 backpack electrofishing units running sideby-side to cover all available fry habitat at each site. Genetic samples are collected from all Rainbow Trout fry that can be identified as wild. In October, five Brown Trout and five Rainbow Trout fry are collected from each site for myxospore enumeration via the pepsin-trypsin digest (PTD) method using whole fish samples. 13 �Population Estimates for Adult Trout Adult trout populations in the Colorado and Fraser rivers are monitored by CPW at several sites on a varying schedule (see Table 2.1, Sections 2.3 and 2.4, and Figure 2.1). Two-pass markrecapture adult population estimates are conducted using raft-mounted, fixed-boom electrofishing units on the Chimney Rock Ranch, Paul Gilbert-Lone Buck, Parshall-Sunset, and ILVK reaches. All fish captured on the mark run are given a caudal fin punch, measured to the nearest millimeter, and returned to the river. At least one day is left between the mark and recapture runs to allow redistribution of marked fish. On the recapture run, fish are examined for the presence of caudal fin punches, measured to the nearest millimeter, and weighed to the nearest gram. Up to sixty genetic samples are collected from Rainbow Trout encountered on the Chimney Rock Ranch reach to determine the proportion of GR genes present in the adult spawning population, and to correlate this proportion with that observed in the wild fry population. On rivers that are too small to float a raft, such as the Fraser and the Colorado rivers upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir, two-pass depletion population estimates are conducted using a Smith-Root 2.5 GPP bank electrofishing unit and wade electrofishing crews. Population Estimates for Mottled Sculpin Mottled Sculpin will be sampled in the fall annually by CPW at eight sites utilizing presenceabsence and three-pass depletion electrofishing (see Table 2.1, Sections 2.3 and 2.4, and Figures 2.2 and 2.3). Sampling will be completed using either Smith-Root LR-24 backpack electrofishing units or a Smith-Root 2.5 GPP bank electrofishing unit. Presence-absence sampling sites will range from 50-500 feet long depending on channel dimensions and fish density. Sites in which Mottled Sculpin are present will range from 50-100 feet long, and will be sampled using threepass depletion electrofishing for abundance determination. At sites where Mottled Sculpin are not documented in the first pass, sampling will continue upstream for up to 500 feet in an attempt to detect sculpin over larger river reaches. 2.3 Study Sites Trout Fry GR and/or GR-cross fry stocking by CPW occurs between Hitching Post Bridge and either the diversion structure on the Chimney Rock Ranch near the confluence with Drowsy Water Creek or the Sheriff Ranch, dependent upon annual fry availability. CPW completes fry population estimates at seven sites, four upstream of Byers Canyon, and three downstream. Sites upstream of Byers Canyon include: Hitching Post (13T 414502, 4440208), Upper Red Barn (13T 412749, 4439680), Lower Red Barn (13T 412287, 4439359), and Sheriff Ranch (13T 409063, 4438050). Sites downstream of Byers Canyon include: Paul Gilbert (13T 403510, 4433781), Lone Buck (13T 402804, 4433786), and Breeze Bridge (13T 398436, 4435431; Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). 14 �Adult Trout Adult trout population sampling by CPW on the Colorado River from the Chimney Rock Ranch to the Sheriff Ranch occurs from just upstream of the Hitching Post Bridge at CR 57 (13T 414569, 4440307) to just upstream of the Sheriff Ranch (13T 409216, 4438019; Figure 2.1). In 2016 and 2017, this section was broken into two sections, upstream and downstream of the diversion structure on the Chimney Rock Ranch (13T 412203, 4439300), to evaluate effects of the diversion structure on trout abundance and distribution. Mottled Sculpin Mottled Sculpin sampling sites (Figures 2.2 and 2.3) include the following locations: Windy Gap connectivity channel (13T 416671, 4439947), Hitching Post (13T 414502, 4440208), Upper Red Barn (13T 412749, 4439680), Sheriff Ranch (13T 409063, 4438050), Paul Gilbert SWA (13T 403398, 4434163), and Breeze Bridge SWA (13T 398436, 4435431). The number and location of Mottled Sculpin sampling sites may be adjusted in response to river conditions and budget constraints; additional sites could be surveyed opportunistically. Table 2.1. Fish monitoring locations in the upper Colorado River and Fraser River, monitoring period and monitoring frequency for trout fry, adult trout, and Mottled Sculpin. Monitoring Target Trout fry population estimates, genetic composition, and myxospore enumeration Monitoring Target Adult trout population estimates Site Colorado River, Hitching Post Colorado River, Upper Red Barn Colorado River, Lower Red Barn Colorado River, Sheriff Ranch Colorado River, Paul Gilbert Colorado River, Lone Buck Colorado River, Breeze Bridge Site Colorado River, Chimney Rock Ranch to Sheriff Ranch Colorado River, ILVK reach Colorado River, Parshall-Sunset reach on Kemp-Breeze SWA Colorado River, Gilbert-Lone Buck SWA Colorado River, Town of Granby property (2 sites at Granby Trails) Fraser River, 4-7 sites 15 Monitoring Period Monitoring Frequency June-October Monthly Monitoring Period Monitoring Frequency Spring Annually Spring Annually Fall Annually Spring Biannually Fall Biannually Fall Some annually, some biannually �Monitoring Target Site Mottled Sculpin population estimates Confluence of Fraser and Colorado rivers Colorado River, Windy Gap connectivity channel Colorado River, Hitching Post Colorado River, Chimney Rock Ranch Colorado River, Pioneer Park SWA Colorado River, Hot Sulphur SWA Colorado River, Kemp Breeze SWA Colorado River, Powers BLM Monitoring Period Fall Monitoring Frequency Annually Fall Annually Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Figure 2.1. Map of the adult trout population sampling location in the Colorado River from the upstream terminus at the CR 57 bridge on the Chimney Rock Ranch to the downstream terminus on the Sheriff Ranch (from Fetherman et al. 2014). 16 �Figure 2.2. Map of the upper Colorado River trout fry, Mottled Sculpin and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling sites downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. Figure 2.3. Map of the upper Colorado River trout fry, Mottled Sculpin and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling sites downstream of Byers Canyon. 17 �2.4 Monitoring Schedule Trout Fry GR fry stocking by CPW will continue into July 2018. Fry stocking using the Hofer by Gunnison River Rainbow (HxG) will occur from 2019-2021. CPW will complete fry population estimates, genetic composition, and myxospore enumeration monthly, June-October, at all seven sites from 2018-2022. Adult Trout CPW will conduct annual adult trout population estimates in the spring in the Colorado River from Chimney Rock Ranch to Sheriff Ranch and also within the ILVK reach from 2018-2022. The Parshall-Sunset reach of the Colorado River on Kemp Breeze SWA will be sampled annually in the fall, beginning in 2018 and continuing through 2022. Three additional sites on the Colorado River (two on the Town of Granby property at Granby Trails) and one at the Gilbert-Lone Buck SWA will be sampled biannually in the fall and spring, respectively, beginning in 2018 and continuing through 2022. Multiple sites (four to seven) on the Fraser River will be sampled in the fall on rotating annual and biannual schedules, beginning in 2018 and continuing through 2022. Mottled Sculpin CPW will conduct annual Mottled Sculpin sampling at eight sites along the Colorado River in the fall, beginning in 2018 and continuing through 2022. Additional sites may be sampled opportunistically depending on river conditions, and budgetary and personnel constraints. Chapter 3: Benthic Macroinvertebrates 3.1 Introduction Dams are known to drastically alter river habitat and have many diverse effects on aquatic invertebrates (Ward and Stanford 1979). Those effects can be large and result in long term changes in invertebrate communities (Vinson 2001). In the upper Colorado River basin, previous work documented the dramatic change of the aquatic invertebrate community in the upper Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir since construction of the reservoir and that these changes may be associated with flow alterations (Nehring et al. 2011). Nehring et al. (2011) documented a 38% reduction in the diversity of aquatic invertebrates below Windy Gap Reservoir between 1980-2011. Nineteen species of mayflies, four species of stoneflies, and eight species of caddisflies have been extirpated from the sampling sites since 1982. In addition to the changes temporal changes in the invertebrate community, there was a spatial pattern of increasing diversity downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir that indicated current effects of the reservoir on invertebrate 18 �habitat and communities. Sensitive species including Drunella grandis, Pteronarcella badia, and Pteronarcys californica were reduced or eliminated from sites close to Windy Gap Reservoir and replaced by tolerant species including Ephemerella sp, Baetis sp, and Hydropsyche sp. The salmonfly (P. californica) is a large aquatic invertebrate that can reach high densities in some Colorado rivers. These invertebrates play an important ecological role as grazers in stream systems and have been documented as extremely important to stream dwelling trout as a food resource. Nehring (1987) reported in a diet study of trout in the Colorado River that P. californica was the most common food item, comprising 64-75% of the mean stomach content over the four year study. Because of their high biomass and hatching behavior, salmonflies also play an important role in supplementing terrestrial food webs and riparian communities with stream-derived nutrients (Baxter et al. 2005; Walters et al. 2018). While ecologically important and found in high abundance at some sites, the salmonfly has relatively specific environmental requirements and is considered intolerant of disturbance in bioassessment protocols (Erickson 1983; Fore et al. 1996; Barbour et al. 1999). Salmonflies are sensitive to habitat alterations in part because of their lifespan; they are one of the longest lived aquatic insects in the Nearctic (DeWalt and Stewart 1995). Previous work indicates that the range and density of P. californica have declined in the Colorado River, and that these declines may be associated with flow alterations (Nehring et al. 2011). Once common in the upper Colorado River (USFWS 1951; Dames and Moore 1977; Erickson 1983), the abundance of salmonflies has declined, especially downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir where flow alterations associated with trans-mountain water diversions are greatest (Nehring et al. 2011). This pattern has been observed in other rivers. Richards (2000) documented six to eight times lower density of salmonflies downstream of a reservoir compared to upstream and found a negative correlation between their density and substrate embeddedness. Aquatic invertebrate diversity, as well as salmonfly abundance and distribution, have been reduced in the Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. Habitat alterations associated with the project seem to have reduced benthic aquatic habitat quality in the river. Restoring connectivity in the upper Colorado River and addressing habitat limitations associated with the flow and sediment regimes should improve conditions for, and the diversity of, invertebrates in the Colorado River. The objective of this project is to document the distribution and density of P. californica in the upper Colorado River and investigate changes over time after the construction of the Windy Gap connectivity channel. 19 �● ● ● ● 3.2 Goals Increase the abundance and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates in the upper Colorado River and re-establish historically common species Increase the distribution and abundance of salmonflies downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir Objectives Evaluate how the Windy Gap connectivity channel affects the aquatic invertebrates of the upper Colorado River Evaluate the distribution and density of salmonflies in the upper Colorado River Methods Replicate macroinvertebrate samples (n = 5) will be collected by CPW at each site using a 0.92 ft2 Hess sampler with a 350-µm mesh net. The replicate samples will be collected from the same riffle with predominantly cobble substrate by disturbing the streambed to a depth of approximately 3.9 inches. Field samples will be washed through a 350-µm sieve and organisms preserved in 80% ethanol. Velocity and depth will be taken at each Hess sample site to ensure samples were taken from similar riffle habitat. Macroinvertebrate samples will be sorted and sub-sampled in the laboratory using a standard USGS 300-count protocol, except that replicates will not be composited and each one will undergo sub sampling and identification protocols (Moulton et al. 2000). All organisms, except for chironomids and non-insects, will be identified to genus or species. Chironomids will be identified to subfamily and non-insects (e.g., oligochaetes, amphipods) identified to class. Salmonfly emergence and density will be monitored by CPW during the emergence period of late June through early July. Multiple pass removal estimates will be completed by searching 98.6 foot sections of stream bank for P. californica exuvia adjacent to riffle habitat. If possible, each site will be visited multiple times to encompass the entire emergence. If a site is visited only once, this will occur as soon as possible after the emergence is complete. Three to seven people will intensively search the riparian area from 3.3 to 65.6 feet from the water’s edge depending on exuvia distribution. On a single sampling occasion, each area will be searched two to four times with identical search areas, effort, and personnel. A multiple-pass depletion model will be used to estimate the total density of exuvia at each site (Zippin 1956). 3.3 Study Sites Aquatic invertebrate sampling sites (Figures 2.2 and 2.3) include the following locations: Windy Gap connectivity channel (13T 416671, 4439947), Hitching Post (13T 414502, 4440208), Upper Red Barn (13T 412749, 4439680), Sheriff Ranch (13T 409063, 4438050), Paul Gilbert #2 (13T 403398, 4434163), and Breeze Bridge #2 (13T 398341, 4435450). Exuvia sampling sites include the following locations: Windy Gap connectivity channel (13T 416671, 4439947), Hitching Post (13T 414502, 4440208), Sheriff Ranch (13T 409063, 4438050), Paul Gilbert SWA (13T 403398, 20 �4434163), and Breeze Bridge SWA (13T 398436, 4435431). The number and location of invertebrate sampling sites may be adjusted in response to river conditions and budget constraints; additional sites could be surveyed opportunistically. 3.4 Monitoring Schedule Benthic macroinvertebrate samples will be collected in August-September of each year, and salmonfly density and emergence will be monitored in June-July of each year. Sampling will begin in 2018 and continue through 2022. If construction of the Windy Gap connectivity channel is delayed, the proposed monitoring schedule will be adjusted accordingly. Chapter 4: Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Geomorphology 4.1 Introduction Aquatic habitat in the upper Colorado River has been altered by changes in the flow regime, water depletions, sedimentation, and armoring of the stream bed (Municipal Subdistrict 2011). Flow alteration has impacted a myriad of processes related to hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic, physicochemical, and biological stream functions (Harman et al. 2012). The reduced capacity to mobilize sediment has embedded riffle habitats important for benthic organisms, such as the salmonfly and Mottled Sculpin. Reconnecting flows from the Colorado River through the Windy Gap connectivity channel should improve sediment transport supply to reaches downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. However, reconnecting reaches upstream and downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir may not be sufficient to restore benthic organisms without improving habitat conditions. Habitat restoration will reduce channel dimensions to improve the frequency of sediment transport and floodplain activation under current and future flow regimes. Riffle de-armoring techniques will also be applied to improve habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in reaches associated with the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project. This chapter presents a monitoring approach for CPW to evaluate the effectiveness of the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project on instream hydraulics and geomorphology. Hydrology will be evaluated by investigating the channel-forming discharge, flood frequency, and flow duration for historical, current, and future flow regimes. Analysis of hydrology will also inform design of the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project. Assessment of floodplain connectivity and flow dynamics will be used to evaluate changes in hydraulics. Geomorphology monitoring will include evaluation of sediment transport, lateral stability, riparian vegetation, bedform diversity, and bed material characterization. The Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project may utilize experimental riffle de-armoring treatments, which will be monitored to inform the application of those treatments in other project areas. 21 �Monitoring and evaluation of hydrology, hydraulics, and geomorphology for the Windy Gap connectivity channel is beyond the scope of this monitoring plan, but should be conducted if additional funding becomes available or if monitoring priorities are changed during discussions with project stakeholders. An approach for geomorphic assessment including evaluation of channel hydraulics and sediment transport is presented in Appendix A to support project development and fundraising. Although CPW cannot commit to geomorphic assessments for the connectivity channel without additional resources, CPW will continue to provide technical design assistance and review for the Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project. Goals ● Improve sediment transport processes in upper Colorado River reaches associated with the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project ● Improve floodplain connectivity in upper Colorado River reaches associated with the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project ● Restore and enhance riparian corridors of the upper Colorado River to improve wildlife habitat and increase flood resilience Objectives ● Increase sediment transport capacity and competence by manipulating channel dimensions ● Decrease the prevalence of fine sediment in embedded riffle habitats ● Increase the suitability of aquatic habitat for Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, and Mottled Sculpin by improving instream hydraulics ● Increase the abundance of native riparian vegetation along streambanks and floodplains ● Increase the frequency of floodplain inundation under current and future flow regimes 4.2 Methods Hydrology Average daily and annual peak discharge records will be obtained by CPW for existing stream gauges and used to evaluate flow alteration and inform restoration designs. Design flows will be selected from hydrologic analysis to support hydraulic modeling. If the location or availability of streamflow data from existing stream gauges is insufficient to support assessment and design, streamflow measurement may be conducted to support evaluation of project reaches. As there are a number of stream gauges located throughout the upper Colorado River basin, collecting additional streamflow measurements may not be needed. Hydraulics Floodplain connectivity and flow dynamics will be evaluated by CPW to support monitoring of hydraulics within the Habitat Restoration Project reach on the Kemp Breeze SWA. Topographic surveys will be conducted with survey-grade GPS and an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) to support hydraulic modeling and project design. Hydraulic models will be configured 22 �and calibrated for existing, proposed, and as-built conditions. The Hydrologic Engineering Center - River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model will be used for assessment, design, and evaluation of the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project. Stream velocity, water depth, shear stress, and stream power will be derived from model outputs to investigate channel hydraulics and habitat suitability. HEC-RAS models will also be used to investigate changes in floodplain connectivity by determining the extent and frequency of floodplain inundation across a range of flows. Channel narrowing activities associated with the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project should increase the frequency of floodplain inundation under current and future flow regimes. Geomorphology Geomorphology monitoring will include evaluation by CPW of sediment transport, lateral stability, riparian vegetation, bedform diversity, embeddedness, and bed material characterization. Sediment transport will be evaluated within the Kemp Breeze SWA by monitoring the movement of 200-600 Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tagged rocks. Using PIT tags to monitor sediment transport is an ideal technique for tracking movements of individual sediment particles in gravel-bed rivers (Lamarre et al. 2005). Pebble counts will be conducted to characterize bed material and select sediment sizes for tagging. PIT-tagged rocks will be placed in riffles, and movement of rocks will be monitored using stationary and mobile radio frequency identification (RFID) antennas. Mobile antennas will be used to relocate PIT-tagged rocks and locations will be recorded with survey-grade GPS. Stationary antennas will be placed downstream of select areas where PIT-tagged rocks have been deployed to monitor the sediment transport across a range of flows. Measurements of sediment movement will be combined with results from hydraulic modeling to evaluate changes in sediment transport associated with implementation of the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project. Sediment monitoring will target locations where riffle dearmoring occurs to evaluate the effectiveness of these experimental treatments, including assessments of fine sediment and embeddedness. Channel morphology will be monitored with repeat surveys of the longitudinal profile and monumented cross-section locations. Geomorphic surveys will be conducted with survey-grade GPS and an ADCP. Additional survey points will be collected throughout the active stream channel, on islands, and along the floodplain. Lateral stability and bedform diversity will be evaluated for existing, proposed, and as-built conditions within the Kemp Breeze SWA using data derived from longitudinal profile and cross-section surveys. The greenline stability rating (Winward 2000; ACOE 2017) will be used to evaluate changes in riparian vegetation and lateral stability for the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project. Identification of riparian vegetation will be limited to the following classes: anchored rock/logs, trees (coniferous and deciduous), willows, other shrubs (sagebrush, cinquefoil, etc.), wet sedges and rushes, other sedges, wet grasses, other grasses, and unvegetated areas (sandbars, loose rock, and bare soil). As CPW aquatic biologists and researchers would not typically be tasked with vegetation identification, additional funding could be used to support a more rigorous approach to riparian vegetation monitoring. 23 �4.3 Study Sites The primary study area is the Habitat Restoration Project at the Kemp Breeze SWA. Additional study areas could include sites associated with the future, larger scale Habitat Project, such as Pioneer Park SWA, Hot Sulphur Springs SWA, and Chimney Rock Ranch. Reference reaches on the Fraser River could also be monitored to compare habitat conditions in project areas to relatively undisturbed reference areas, but reference-reach surveys on the Fraser River are currently beyond the scope of this monitoring plan. 4.4 Monitoring Schedule The proposed schedule for the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project is presented in Table 4.1. Baseline monitoring will be conducted in 2018 and 2019, project construction is scheduled for 2020, implementation monitoring will occur in 2021, and effectiveness monitoring will take place in 2022. The schedule assumes that the Kemp Breeze Habitat Restoration Project will be constructed in 2020, but the construction schedule is dependent upon various factors and is subject to change. If construction of the project is delayed, the proposed monitoring schedule will be adjusted accordingly. Table 4.1. Proposed schedule for the Kemp Breeze SWA Habitat Restoration Project. Task 2018 Project Design 2019 2020 2021 2022 X X X Project Construction X Geomorphic Surveys and Assessment X Hydraulic Modeling X X X Sediment Transport Surveys and Assessment X X X Riparian Vegetation Surveys and Assessment X X X Chapter 5: Monitoring Budget CPW has committed within the Headwaters Project to a budget of $115,000 annually beginning in 2017, across five years of effort for a total of $575,000. Securing additional funds could be beneficial for more extensive evaluation of the Headwaters Project, i.e. proposed hydrology, hydraulics, and geomorphology assessments specifically related to the Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project (Appendix A), and the proposed fish movement study (Appendix B). 24 �References ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2017. Wyoming Stream Quantification Tool (WSQT) User Manual and Spreadsheet. Beta Version. Avila, B. W., D. L. Winkelman, and E. R. Fetherman. In review. Survival of whirling disease resistant Rainbow Trout fry: a comparison of two strains. Submitted to the Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. Baxter, C. V., K. D. Fausch, and W.C. Saunders. 2005. Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology 50:201-220. Dames and Moore. 1977. Environmental assessment report Windy Gap project Grand County, Colorado for municipal subdistrict, Northern Water Conservancy District. Denver, CO. DeWalt, R. E., and K. W. Stewart. 1995. Life-histories of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in the Rio Conejos of southern Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist 55:1-18. Fetherman, E. R., D. L. Winkelman, M. R. Baerwald, and G. J. Schisler. 2014. Survival and reproduction of Myxobolus cerebralis resistant rainbow trout in the Colorado River and increased survival of age-0 progeny. PLoS ONE 9(5):e96954. Fetherman, E. R., D. L. Winkelman, G. J. Schisler, and M. F. Antolin. 2012. Genetic basis of differences in myxospore count between whirling disease-resistant and -susceptible strains of Rainbow Trout. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 102:97-106. Fetherman, E. R., D. L. Winkelman, G. J. Schisler, and C. A. Myrick. 2011. The effects of Myxobolus cerebralis on the physiological performance of whirling disease resistant and susceptible strains of Rainbow Trout. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 23:169-177. Fore, L. S., J. R. Karr, and R. W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: Evaluating alternative approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(2):212-231. Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, K. Suggs, and C. Miller. 2012. A function-based framework for stream assessment and restoration projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC. EPA 843-K-12-006. Kowalski, D. A. 2014. Colorado River aquatic resources investigations. Federal Aid Project F237-R21. Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration, Job Progress Report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Aquatic Wildlife Research Section. Fort Collins, Colorado. Lamarre, H., B. MacVicar, and A. G. Roy. 2005. Using passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags to investigate sediment transport in gravel-bed rivers. Journal of Sedimentary Research 75:736-741. Municipal Subdistrict. 2011. Windy Gap Firming Project Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Plan. Prepared by the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District in partnership with Denver Water. 15 pp. Nehring, R. B. 1987. Stream fisheries investigations. Federal Aid Project F-51-R. Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration, Job Progress Report. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fish Research Section. Fort Collins, Colorado. 25 �Nehring, R. B. 2006. Colorado’s cold water fisheries: whirling disease case histories and insights for risk management. Colorado Division of Wildlife Aquatic Wildlife Research Special Report Number 79. Denver, Colorado. 46 pp. Nehring, R. B., B. Heinhold, and J. Pomeranz. 2011. Colorado River aquatic resources investigations. Federal Aid Project F-237-R18. Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration, Final Report. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Aquatic Wildlife Research Section. Fort Collins, Colorado. Nehring, R. B., and K. G. Thompson. 2001. Impact assessment of some physical and biological factors in the whirling disease epizootic among wild trout in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Aquatic Research Special Report Number 76. Denver, Colorado. 78 pp. Richards, D. C., M. G. Rolston, and F. V. Dunkle. 2000. A comparison of salmonfly density upstream and downstream of Ennis Reservoir. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 6(1):1-9. Ryce, E. K. N., A. V. Zale, E. MacConnell, and M. Nelson. 2005. Effects of fish age versus size on the development of whirling disease in Rainbow Trout. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 63:69-76. Schisler, G. J., E. P. Bergersen, and P. G. Walker. 1999a. Evaluation of chronic gas supersaturation on growth, morbidity, and mortality of fingerling Rainbow Trout infected with Myxobolus cerebralis. North American Journal of Aquaculture 61:175-183. Schisler, G. J., E. P. Bergersen, and P. G. Walker. 2000. Effects of multiple stressors on morbidity and mortality of fingerling Rainbow Trout infected with Myxobolus cerebralis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:859-865. Schisler, G. J., K. A. Myklebust, and R. P. Hedrick. 2006. Inheritance of Myxobolus cerebralis resistance among F1-generation crosses of whirling disease resistant and susceptible Rainbow Trout strains. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 18:109-115. Schisler, G. J., P. G. Walker, L. A. Chittum, and E. P. Bergersen. 1999b. Gill ectoparasites of juvenile Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout in the upper Colorado River. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 11:170-174. Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada Number 184. Sigler, F. F., and R. R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Department of Fish and Game. Salt Lake City, Utah. Tetra Tech. 2015. Final Report Windy Gap Reservoir Modification Study. Fort Collins, Colorado. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1951. Recreational use and water requirements of the Colorado River fishery below Granby Dam in relation to the Colorado-Big Thompson diversion project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Vinson, M. R. 2001. Long-term dynamics of an invertebrate assemblage downstream from a large dam. Ecological Applications 11:711-720. Walters, D. M., J. S. Wesner, R. E. Zuellig, D. A. Kowalski, and M. C. Kondratieff. 2018. Holy flux: spatial and temporal variation in massive pulses of emerging insect biomass from western U.S. rivers. Ecology 99(1):238-240. 26 �Ward, J. V. 1998. Riverine landscapes: biodiversity patterns, disturbance regimes, and aquatic conservation. Biological Conservation 83:269-278. Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1979. The ecology of regulated streams. Plenum Press, New York. Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado’s little fish, a guide to the minnows and other lesser known fishes in the state of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, Colorado. Walker, P. G., and R. B. Nehring. 1995. An investigation to determine the cause(s) of the disappearance of young wild rainbow trout in the Upper Colorado River, in Middle Park, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Report. Denver, Colorado. 134 pp. Windward, A. H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-47. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p. 27 �Appendix A: Proposed Geomorphic Monitoring of the Connectivity Channel The following proposal describes a geomorphic monitoring study that could be conducted in conjunction with the construction and evaluation of the Windy Gap connectivity channel in the Colorado River, if additional funding and staff time are added for these evaluations. A.1 Introduction Aquatic habitat in the upper Colorado River has been altered by changes in the flow regime, water depletions, sedimentation, and armoring of the stream bed (Municipal Subdistrict 2011). Reconnecting flows from the Colorado River through the Windy Gap connectivity channel should improve sediment transport processes for reaches downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. The connectivity channel should also support fish passage for target species and life stages across a range of flows and operational scenarios. This document presents a monitoring approach to evaluate the effectiveness of the Windy Gap connectivity channel. Hydrology should be monitored to support evaluation of fish passage and channel evolution. Flow monitoring within the connectivity channel may also be necessary for water rights administration. Geomorphology monitoring will include evaluation of sediment transport, lateral stability, riparian vegetation, bedform diversity, and bed material characterization. Theses monitoring targets were selected to support evaluation of project goals and objectives. Goals ● Restore sediment transport in the upper Colorado River around Windy Gap Reservoir ● Restore fish passage in the upper Colorado River around Windy Gap Reservoir Objectives ● Transport sediment loads from the Colorado River through the Windy Gap diversion structure and connectivity channel ● Convey flood flows through the connectivity channel and adjacent floodplain ● Validate that hydraulics within the connectivity channel are within the range of target fish passage criteria ● Evaluate evolution of the connectivity channel to ensure it maintains a target range of dimensions that support fish passage ● Improve the resilience and stability of streambanks along the connectivity channel by increasing the abundance of native riparian vegetation A.2 Methods Hydrology Flows through the connectivity channel should be monitored to support evaluation of the Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project. Discharge records will be obtained for existing stream gauges and diversion structures to evaluate flows within the connectivity channel. If the location or 28 �availability of streamflow data from existing stream gauges and diversions is insufficient to support assessment and design, streamflow measurements may be conducted to support project evaluation. The establishment of any streamflow stations should be coordinated with Northern Water to ensure that monitoring is adequate to support water rights administration and project evaluation. Hydraulics Floodplain connectivity and flows dynamics will be evaluated to support monitoring of hydraulics within the connectivity channel. Topographic surveys will be conducted with survey-grade GPS and an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) to support hydraulic modeling and project evaluation. Hydraulic models will be configured and calibrated for as-built (implementation monitoring) and post-runoff (effectiveness monitoring) conditions with the Hydrologic Engineering Center - River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). Stream velocity and water depth will be derived from model outputs to compare channel hydraulics and fish passage criteria. HECRAS models will also be used to investigate sediment transport and floodplain connectivity. Geomorphology Geomorphology monitoring will include evaluation of sediment transport, channel evolution, riparian vegetation, bedform diversity, and bed material characterization. Sediment transport will be evaluated within the connectivity channel by monitoring the movement of 200-600 Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tagged rocks. Using PIT tags to monitor sediment transport is an ideal technique for tracking movements of individual sediment particles in gravel-bed rivers (Lamarre et al. 2005). Pebble counts will be conducted to characterize bed material and select sediment sizes for tagging. PIT-tagged rocks will be placed in riffles, and movement of rocks will be monitored using stationary and mobile radio frequency identification (RFID) antennas (see Appendix A). Mobile antennas will be used to relocate PIT-tagged rocks, and locations will be recorded with survey-grade GPS. Stationary antennas will be placed downstream of select areas where PIT-tagged rocks have been deployed to monitor sediment transport across a range of flows. Connectivity channel morphology will be monitored with repeat surveys of the longitudinal profile and cross-section locations. Geomorphic surveys will be conducted with survey-grade GPS and an ADCP. Lateral stability and bedform diversity will be evaluated for as-built and post-runoff conditions using data derived from longitudinal profile and cross-section surveys. The greenline stability rating (Winward 2000; ACOE 2017) will be used to evaluate changes in riparian vegetation and lateral stability. Identification of riparian vegetation will be limited to the following classes: anchored rock/logs, trees (coniferous and deciduous), willows, other shrubs (sagebrush, cinquefoil, etc.), wet sedges and rushes, other sedges, wet grasses, other grasses, and unvegetated areas (sandbars, loose rock, and bare soil). Additional funding could support a more rigorous approach to riparian vegetation monitoring if desired. 29 �A.3 Study Sites The primary study area is the Windy Gap connectivity channel associated with the Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project. Topographic surveys will include the connectivity channel and adjacent floodplain from the upstream diversion point to the downstream confluence with the Colorado River. A.4 Monitoring Schedule Baseline monitoring will not be conducted prior to construction of the Windy Gap connectivity channel, but survey data collected during project design should be sufficient to document changes associated with project implementation. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring for the connectivity channel would occur in 2021 and 2022, respectively. The schedule assumes that the Windy Gap connectivity channel will be constructed in 2020, but the construction schedule is dependent upon various factors and is subject to change. If construction of the project is delayed, the proposed monitoring schedule will be adjusted accordingly. Table A.1. Proposed geomorphic monitoring schedule for the Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project. Task 2021 2022 Geomorphic Surveys and Assessment X X Hydraulic Modeling X X Sediment Transport Surveys and Assessment X X Riparian Vegetation Surveys and Assessment X X Project Design Project Construction A.5 2018 2019 X X 2020 X References ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2017. Wyoming Stream Quantification Tool (WSQT) User Manual and Spreadsheet. Beta Version. Lamarre, H., B. MacVicar, and A. G. Roy. 2005. Using passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags to investigate sediment transport in gravel-bed rivers. Journal of Sedimentary Research 75:736-741. 30 �Municipal Subdistrict. 2011. Windy Gap Firming Project Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Plan. Prepared by the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District in partnership with Denver Water. 15 pp. Windward, A. H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-47. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p. 31 �Appendix B: Proposed Fish Movement Study The following draft proposal describes a fish movement study that could be conducted in conjunction with the construction and evaluation of the Windy Gap connectivity channel in the Colorado River, if additional funding and staff time are added for these evaluations. The proposal is still in draft form and is subject to change. B.1 Introduction Connectivity is a fundamental element of landscape structure and ecological processes, and longitudinal connectivity is especially important in rivers (Taylor et al. 1993; Fausch et al. 2002). Loss of free passage due to artificial barriers can lead to habitat fragmentation and limit fish distributions, such as those of Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) in the Colorado River, by reducing access to key habitats (Fausch et al. 2002; Lucas et al. 2009). In general, fish require three major habitat types: 1) feeding habitats with favorable growth conditions, 2) refugia from harsh environmental conditions with unfavorable growth conditions, and 3) spawning habitat with necessary flow conditions for egg incubation. Movements among these various habitat types occurs continuously throughout the year based on spawn timing (e.g., spring for Rainbow Trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss] and fall for Brown Trout [Salmo trutta]), environmental and flow conditions, physical or habitat conditions and availability, and growth or life stage (Schlosser and Angermeier 1995). The construction of the connectivity channel around Windy Gap Reservoir will help restore connectivity for these types of movements, and provide access to favorable habitats, such as upstream spawning locations, that had been previously unavailable for fish populations in the Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. Conversely, fish such as Mottled Sculpin, which are currently absent immediately downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir, will be able to distribute downstream increasing the diversity of the riverine ecosystem downstream of the reservoir. This study will be focused on evaluating fish movement rates through the connectivity channel and validating that the connectivity channel is being used for fish passage in both the upstream and downstream directions. Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags are an important tool for evaluating fish growth, movement, and mortality due to their relatively low cost, longevity, ability to identify unique individuals, ease of application, and minimal effects on fish survival, growth, feeding behavior, and swimming performance (Zydlewski et al. 2006; Newby et al. 2007; Ficke et al 2012). Antennas constructed of copper wire anchored to the bottom of the river (stationary antenna) or actively passing over the fish (portable antennas) are used to detect PIT tags that have been inserted internally in target fish species. The antennas create an electromagnetic field that activates the tag and records the unique identification number returned from the tag to an interrogation system or reader. Since the tags are activated by an electromagnetic field rather than battery, they are not only considered passive, but also have an infinite life. In recent years, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has utilized PIT technology to monitor movement of salmonids in and out of specific management sections (Fetherman et al. 2014; Fetherman et al. 2015), passage of salmonids, 32 �suckers, and dace at whitewater park structures (Fox et al. 2016), and evaluate Brown Trout habitat utilization in mountain streams (Richer et al. 2017). The focus species for this study include Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout, the dominant sport fish species in the Fraser River and Colorado River upstream and downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. Mottled Sculpin distribution in the downstream direction through the connectivity channel will also be an important focus of the fish movement monitoring efforts. Although most Mottled Sculpin are relatively sedentary, recent research has shown that a small percentage of these fish exhibit considerable movement capability (Breen et al. 2009; Hudy and Shiflet 2009). Using PIT tags and stationary and portable PIT tag antennas, the overall objectives of this study are to evaluate Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, and Mottled Sculpin movement both upstream and downstream through the connectivity channel, adequacy of attraction flows from the connectivity channel, and large-scale movement patterns of various age classes of target fish species throughout the upper Colorado River. ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● B.2 Goals Restore longitudinal connectivity for fish populations around Windy Gap Reservoir Primary Objectives Evaluate fish movement patterns under existing conditions upstream and downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir Validate that the connectivity channel is being utilized for fish passage by Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, and Mottled Sculpin Secondary Objectives Determine if the stream gage on the Fraser River upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir is an obstacle for fish movement Determine if the diversion structure on the Fraser River below Highway 40 is an obstacle for fish movement Determine if the diversion structure on the Chimney Rock Ranch is an obstacle for fish movement Evaluate the relative proportion of the fish population that is utilizing the Colorado and Fraser rivers upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir Evaluate fish entrainment into Windy Gap Reservoir following construction of the Windy Gap connectivity channel diversion structure Evaluate utilization of spawning habitat in the headwaters of the Fraser River Methods The study will include two distinct phases. First, a baseline study of fish movement patterns and rates will be conducted for reaches upstream and downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. Second, the baseline study design will be expanded to evaluate the efficiency of fish movement through the Windy Gap connectivity channel. To achieve the primary study objective of evaluating fish movement patterns under existing conditions, stationary antennas will be installed in the Colorado River on the Chimney Rock Ranch upstream of the Hitching Post Bridge and upstream of Windy 33 �Gap Reservoir downstream of the confluence with the Fraser River in 2019 to monitor baseline movement rates. An additional stationary antenna will be installed on the Chimney Rock Ranch just upstream of the confluence with Drowsy Water Creek to determine distances moved from downstream fish tagging locations. All three antenna locations will consist of paired antenna loops constructed from 8-gauge copper speaker wire and anchored to the substrate to prevent movement or change in shape, maximizing read range. Paired antenna loops allow researchers to determine directionality of movement (upstream versus downstream) when it occurs at each antenna location. Antenna stations will be powered by multiple 12-V, 120-Ah marine deep cycle batteries housed in a job box along with the reader(s). Additional power for each antenna station will be supplied by solar panels installed near each antenna location. Readers will run continuously after installation to capture fish movements during all times of the day and throughout the entire time that they are installed. Baseline fish movement rates will be monitored in 2019 and 2020, prior to the construction of the Windy Gap connectivity channel. Following the completion of the Windy Gap connectivity channel, additional antenna stations will be installed upstream and downstream of the connectivity channel to achieve the primary study objective of validating that the connectivity channel is being used by Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, and Mottled Sculpin. The downstream antenna will be installed in the connectivity channel just upstream of where the channel reconnects with the Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. The upstream antenna will be incorporated into the diversion structure located at the upstream end of the connectivity channel. Similar to the antenna design described above, each antenna location will have paired antenna loops to determine directionality of movement into or out of the connectivity channel. Additionally, successful movement in either direction through the connectivity channel will be evaluated during the data analysis phase of the project by quantifying the proportion of fish that were detected at both antenna locations within the connectivity channel. A third antenna station may be installed on the Schmuck’s bypass channel originating from Windy Gap Reservoir, dependent upon the amount of flow in this channel, to determine if flows attract fish and prevent them from finding or using the connectivity channel during certain times of the year. Efficiency of the connectivity channel will be monitored using these three antenna stations in 2021 and 2022. Portable antennas, antennas mounted in or on rafts and floated on the surface of the river, will be deployed during both the baseline and efficiency monitoring phases of the study (2019-2022) to improve detection probability of tagged fish and determine the fate of fish that are never detected at a stationary antenna site. GPS technology will be incorporated into portable antenna designs to get more precise locations on fish throughout the study reach and to estimate average distance moved by fish species and size. Portable antennas will be deployed in three reaches: 1) on the Colorado River between Hitching Post Bridge and the Sheriff Ranch; 2) on the Colorado River upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir and the confluence with the Fraser River; and 3) on the Fraser River between the Highway 40 diversion structure and Fraser Canyon (Figure A.1). An additional portable antenna reach will be added within the connectivity channel following its completion, which will be monitored during the effectiveness monitoring phase of the study (2021-2022) to determine location and fate of fish that entered but did not exit the channel. During deployment, 34 �portable antennas will be run down the thalweg, as well as the left and right sides of the river channel, to increase detection probabilities of fish throughout the channel. The combination of the three runs will constitute a single detection or “mark” pass in any given reach. A second set of three runs (thalweg, left and right sides of the river) will be used as a “recapture” pass to estimate detection probability, tagged fish abundance, and change in detection location in the event that a fish moved between passes. To maximize the chance of capturing fish movements during portable antenna surveys, surveys will be conducted in the spring (March-April) and fall (SeptemberOctober) during times when fish are most likely to be moving to spawning sites. Secondary objectives, specifically determining if the gauge on the Fraser River upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir, the diversion structure on the Fraser River downstream of Highway 40, and the diversion structure on the Chimney Rock Ranch are obstacles for fish movement, will be achieved using additional antenna stations at these locations. At each location, a set of paired antennas will be installed upstream and downstream of each structure allowing for determination of directionality of movement as fish approach the structure. Antennas located downstream of each structure will provide information regarding the number of fish that approached and attempted to pass the structure, whereas antennas located upstream of the structures will provide information regarding the number of fish that successfully passed the structure. Each of the three locations will be monitored for at least one season during the baseline monitoring phase of the study (20192020). The secondary objective of determining the relative proportion of the fish population that are utilizing the Colorado and Fraser rivers upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir will be achieved by installing a paired antenna on the Colorado River upstream of the confluence with the Fraser River to estimate fish movement rates among the two rivers. This antenna will be installed during the baseline monitoring phase and remain intact following construction of the Windy Gap connectivity channel (2019-2022). Additionally, an antenna station will be installed downstream of the dynamic weir in the inlet to Windy Gap Reservoir to achieve the secondary objective of determining if fish are entrained in Windy Gap Reservoir following construction of the Windy Gap connectivity channel diversion structure. Finally, to further validate that the connectivity channel is being utilized for fish passage, an antenna station will be installed roughly half way through the connectivity channel to better ascertain the fate of fish moving within the channel but not detected at both ends of the channel. This antenna will be used to both determine if fish move partway down the channel and then turn around, and/or if fish are being retained and using the habitat features constructed within the channel itself. The antennas installed in the inlet and connectivity channel will be used to monitor fish movement at these locations in 2021 and 2022. Antenna design, construction, and power needs for the antennas used to achieve the secondary objectives will be similar to those described above. However, additional personnel will be needed for antenna installation, upkeep, data collection and archiving, and data analysis. Portable antennas will be used to obtain the secondary objective of evaluating utilization of spawning habitat in the headwaters of the Fraser River. Similar to portable antenna deployments described to meet the primary objectives, multiple runs will be used to increase detection probability across the width of the channel. Mark and recapture passes will be used to estimate detection probability, tagged fish (or tag) abundance, and location and fate of fish that have moved 35 �into spawning sites within the Fraser River. GPS data from multiple sampling occasions will be compared to determine if detected tags remain in live fish (indicated by change in location between passes and/or sampling occasions) or have been spawned out (no change in movement between passes or sampling occasions). Tags determined to have been spawned out of the fish will be used to monitor the use of and identify preferred spawning sites for both Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout in this section of the river. Portable antennas used to evaluate spawning habitat in the Fraser River will be deployed during or following the spring and fall spawning periods in 2019-2022. Fish will be tagged in multiple reaches upstream and downstream of stationary antenna locations. A large portion of the tagging on the Chimney Rock and Sheriff ranches will occur during the spring adult population estimates conducted in May 2019-2022. Additional tagging events will be needed to tag fish in the Colorado and Fraser rivers upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir, likely concurrent with standard sampling sites conducted in these locations. Additionally, fish may be tagged as far downstream as Pioneer Park to look at long-distance movements within the upper Colorado River. Target species for tagging include Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, and Mottled Sculpin. Multiple age classes will be tagged of all three target species using 12 mm, 23 mm, and 32 mm tags as appropriate for fish body size and desired detection distance. The number of tags used will be dependent upon target species and age class abundances. The goal is to tag at least 250 Rainbow Trout and 250 Brown Trout (500 fish total) in the Chimney Rock Ranch reach, with an additional 250 fish of each species tagged in the Colorado and Fraser rivers upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir (combined) annually between 2019 and 2022. In the Fraser and Colorado rivers upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir, up to 250 Mottled Sculpin will be tagged annually. Additional numbers of fish of each species will be tagged opportunistically dependent upon tag availability and number of fish captured during electrofishing efforts in each reach. To achieve the secondary objective of evaluating utilization of spawning habitat in the headwaters of the Fraser River, an additional 100 Brown Trout and 100 Rainbow Trout will be tagged annually in headwater sections of the Fraser River near the towns of Fraser and Winter Park between 2019 and 2022. All fish will be anesthetized using AQUI-S 20E (clove oil), tagged in the interperitoneal cavity using a tagging gun and needle, and secondarily fin clipped to estimate tag loss. Fish will be held in net pens following tag insertion to ensure recovery from tagging and anesthetization prior to release back into the river. B.3 Study Sites The project study area will extend from the Fraser and Colorado rivers upstream of the connectivity channel downstream through the Chimney Rock Ranch to the Sheriff Ranch, incorporating stationary and portable antenna deployment locations described above to meet the primary and secondary objectives of the study. Additionally, portable antenna stations may extend further upstream on the Fraser River to evaluate utilization of spawning habitat in the headwaters of the Fraser River. Primary fish tagging reaches will include the Chimney Rock Ranch, the Colorado River upstream of the confluence with the Fraser River, and the Fraser River near Highway 40. Additional tagging locations for evaluating the utilization of spawning habitat may be located in 36 �the Fraser River closer to the towns of Fraser and Winter Park. An overview of stationary antenna locations, mobile antenna reaches, and electrofishing sites is presented in Figure B.1. Figure B.1. Location of stationary sites, mobile antenna reaches, and electrofishing sites for the proposed fish movement study. B.4 Monitoring Schedule Pre-construction baseline movement rates will be monitored in the Colorado and Fraser rivers upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir and in Chimney Rock Ranch beginning in 2019 and continuing through the completion of the connectivity channel in 2020. Tagging will begin on the Chimney Rock Ranch during the spring 2019 adult population estimates and continue annually during these estimates through 2022. Antenna installation for baseline monitoring would occur in 2019, with additional antennas being installed in and around the connectivity channel for monitoring the efficiency of the channel to pass fish in fall 2020 or spring 2021, dependent upon when construction of the channel is complete. Antennas will remain in place through fall 2022, with additional tagging events occurring in the Colorado and Fraser rivers in 2020, 2021, and 2022. 37 �B.5 References Breen, M. J., C. R. Ruetz III, K. J. Thompson, and S. L. Kohler. 2009. Movements of Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) in a Michigan stream: how restricted are they? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66:31-41. Fausch, K. D., C. E. Torgersen, C. V. Baxter, and L. W. Hiram. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. Bioscience 52:483-498. Fetherman, E. R., B. W. Avila, and D. L. Winkelman. 2014. Raft and floating radio frequency identification (RFID) systems for detecting and estimating abundance of PIT-tagged fish in rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34:1065-1077. Fetherman, E. R., D. L. Winkelman, L. L. Bailey, G. J. Schisler, and K. Davies. 2015. Brown trout removal effects on short-term survival and movement of Myxobolus cerebralis-resistant rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 144:610-626. Ficke, A. D., C. A. Myrick, and M. C. Kondratieff. 2012. The effects of PIT tagging on the swimming performance and survival of three nonsalmonid freshwater fishes. Ecological Engineering 48: 86-91. Fox, B. D., B. P. Bledsoe, E. Kolden, M. C. Kondratieff, and C. A. Myrick. 2016. Eco-hydraulic evaluation of a whitewater park as a fish passage barrier. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 52(2):1-23. Hudy, M., and J. Schiflet. 2009. Movement and recolonization of Potomac sculpin in a Virginia stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:196-204. Lamarre, H., B. MacVicar, and A. G. Roy. 2005. Using passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags to investigate sediment transport in gravel-bed rivers. Journal of Sedimentary Research 75:736-741. Lucas, M. C., D. H. Hubb, M.-H. Jang, K. Ha, and J. E. C. Masters. 2009. Availability of and access to critical habitats in regulated rivers: effects of low-head barriers on threatened lampreys. Freshwater Biology 54:621-634. Newby, N. C., T. R. Binder, and E. D. Stevens. 2007. Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagging did not negatively affect the short-term feeding behavior or swimming performance of juvenile Rainbow Trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:341-345. Richer, E. E., E. R. Fetherman, M. C. Kondratieff, and T. A. Barnes. 2017. Incorporating GPS and mobile radio frequency identification to detect PIT-tagged fish and evaluate habitat utilization in streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 37(6):1249-1264. Schlosser, I. J., and P. L. Angermeier. 1995. Spatial variation in demographic processes of lotic fishes: conceptual models, empirical evidence, and implications for conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:392-401. Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, and G. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571-573. Zydlewski, G. B., G. Horton, T. Dubreuil, B. Letcher, S. Casey, and J. Zydlewski. 2006. Remote monitoring of fish in small streams: a unified approach using PIT tags. Fisheries 31(10):492502. 38 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft proposed Upper Colorado River Headwaters project monitoring plan Description An account of the resource In December 2016, a group of partners including American Rivers, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD), Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), Denver Water, Grand County, Irrigators of Lands in the Vicinity of Kremmling (ILVK), Municipal Subdistrict of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water), Trout Unlimited, and the Upper Colorado River Alliance was awarded $7.75 million by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) through their Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) for the Upper Colorado River Headwaters Project (Headwaters Project). The Headwaters Project is comprised of three endeavors within Grand County that will collectively restore fish and wildlife habitat, and improve water quality and agricultural water management on a regional scale. The RCPP funding will be utilized to focus on two specific project components: 1) reconnecting the Colorado River upstream and downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir (referenced as the Windy Gap Connectivity Channel Project); and 2) restoration of the Colorado River channel to be resilient to hydrological modifications, while sustaining agriculture, and aquatic and riparian habitat (referenced as the Irrigators of Lands in the Vicinity of Kremmling Project). The third endeavor, the Kemp Breeze State Wildlife Area (SWA) Habitat Restoration Project, is expected to be funded by the partners, and other interested parties. These three project components are further described in the following sections. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Colorado Parks and Wildlife Subject The topic of the resource Upper Colorado River Headwaters Habitat restoration Extent The size or duration of the resource. 38 pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2018-03-19 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/b7a6158b14329e9f48a16eb45b676ed3.pdf a5e096aaa7056905ac88a8f9ed28c4f0 PDF Text Text Formalin Sensitivity in Rainbow Trout Adrian Gehr In collaboration with: Lindsay Rencoret Soo-Young Kim Charlie Vollmer Departments of Mathematics and Statistics Colorado State University Eric Fetherman Aquatic Research Section Colorado Parks and Wildlife Version: May 8, 2014 Abstract Formalin is a commonly used prophalyctic antifungal and antiparasitic treatment of fish and fish eggs, yet little is known about the differential sensitivity among strains after exposure as eggs. This study seeks to determine the sensitivities (measured by mortality) of four rainbow trout strains, after first exposure to formalin as eggs, and a later exposure as fingerlings. The data is analyzed using logistic regression and a Cox proportional hazard model. Both models yield consistent conclusions; the different strains do die at different rates as fingerlings, but the egg treatment does not contribute to these differences. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Formalin is among the most effective and commonly used antifungal and antiparasitic treatments in fish and fish eggs (Bills et. al 1977). As such, a better understanding of the sensitivities of various strains to treatment conditions commonly used in hatcheries has commercial relevance. Past research has demonstrated different sensitivities among strains exposed to formalin post-hatch (Piper and Smith 1973), yet little to no research has explored the effects of exposure as eggs. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether different formalin exposure levels as eggs affects mortality later as fingerlings, after secondary exposure conditions. Four strains of rainbow trout are considered here: pure Hofer, pure Harrison Lake, 50:50 cross, and 75:25 Hofer:Harrison cross. 1.2 Questions of Interest 1. Does dosage as eggs affect mortality as fingerlings? 1 �2. Are there sensitivity differences among the different strains? 3. Does dosage as fingerlings affect mortality, among fish previously exposed as eggs? 4. Does duration of exposure as fingerlings affect mortality, among fish previously exposed as eggs? 5. How does fish size affect sensitivity to formalin? 1.3 Experimental Design The experiment is composed of two stages. In the first stage, eggs are treated with formalin for 15 minutes, at two different levels: 1667 or 5000 ppm. Subsequently, the surviving eggs are allowed to grow to the fingerling stage (approx. 3 inches in size), whereupon they are re-exposed to one of eight treatment conditions, according to a complete randomized design. The eight fingerling treatment conditions consist of the combinations of four exposure dosages (0, 167, 250, 500 ppm) at two possible durations (30 or 60 minutes). These levels are chosen to be in line with common hatchery treatment conditions, which, according to a survey of Colorado Parks and Wildlife hatchery managers, range from 130-250 ppm, with 167 ppm for 30 minutes being the most common. The 500 ppm condition is included to test for toxicity at extraordinarily high dosages. After treatment, the fish are observed over five days, and time of death is recorded. Following the observation period to test for delayed mortality effects, the the fish are sacrificed (i.e. the data are censored), and the weight, length, and strain of each fingerling is recorded. 2 Exploratory Data Analysis We begin by viewing the overall structure of the data, and then move on to visualizations that highlight the effects of different explanatory variables. We consider all possible explanatory variables that were measured, except length. Length was excluded due to its high colinearity with weight (r = .958). Weight serves as a general proxy for size. For ease of reference, the explanatory variables under consideration follow: X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 = = = = = = = Duration of exposure Exposure concentration as fingerlings Weight as fingerlings Indicator for pure Hofer strain Indicator for 50:50 cross Indicator for 75:25 Hofer:Harrison hybrid Exposure concentration as eggs The measured response variable is survival time. It will also be convenient to create a response vector of zeros and ones, where a one corresponds to a fish that survived and a zero corresponds to a fish that died. Figure 1 shows that fish tended to either die quickly or survive until censored, suggesting that we are not losing a much information if we replace time of death with this binary response vector. Doing so will allow us to analyze the data with a logistic regression model. 2 �While the majority of fish survived the full duration of the experiment, a significant fraction did not. To get an idea of which treatments were having an effect on the proportion of survivors, figure 2 shows a bar graph broken down by treatment. There are three main things to notice from figure 2: 1. The blueish blocks tend to show substantially higher mortality rates than the reddish blocks, suggesting that the 60 min group experienced higher rates of death than the 30 min group (i.e. longer duration of exposure as fingerlings appears to increase the probability of death.) 2. The mortality rate tends to increase within each block as fingerling dosage increases, suggesting that increased dosage as fingerlings is associated with higher mortality. 3. The two reddish blocks look roughly the same, as do the two blueish blocks. This suggests that egg treatment may have no significant effect on mortality rate as fingerlings. Figure 3 attempts to illuminate the other two research questions (2 and 5). There are couple things to notice from figure 3. The points on the left side (representing fish that died) are somewhat more densely clumped near the low weight side of the spectrum, and get more sparse as weight increases, possibly suggesting that increased weight tends to reduce mortality. However, this requires that the points on the right side of the plot (those that survived) are not also more clumped on the low weight side of the spectrum, which is difficult to tell from this plot. Secondly, there appears to be relatively fewer green points, and relatively more purple and blue points toward the left side of the plot, suggesting that Harrison Lake strain may be less sensitive, and Hofer may be relatively more sensitive. We have now provided suggestive answers to our questions of interest. Next we turn to formal analysis to quantify our results. 3 Formal Analysis We built two models to analyze the data, both commonly used in survival analysis. First we will describe a logistic regression model, and follow up with a Cox proportional hazard (PH) model. The logistic regression model has advantage of simplicity and more intuitive interpretations, but at the cost of ignoring time of death, and instead treating survival as an indicator variable. The Cox PH model has the advantage of accounting for the time of death information, while still appropriately handling the censored nature of the data. Both models yield consistent results, providing additional confidence for our conclusions. 3.1 Logistic Regression Model The logistic regression model treats survival as an indicator variable, where any fingerling that survived for more than 70 hours was coded as ”success” (Y=1) and all others as ”failure” (Y=0). The choice of the 70 hour time cutoff is appropriate because all fish that survived past 70 hours, did in fact survive until censored (see Figure 1). In this model, each Yi is assumed to be a Bernouli random variable with probability of survival pi that depends on the values of the covariates for the ith fish. The value of pi depends on the covariates according to the following relation: 3 �logit(pi ) = ln( pi ) = β0 + β1 x1i + β2 x2i + β3 x3i + β4 x4i + β5 x5i + β6 x6i + β7 x7i 1 − pi where pi = probability of surviving, and the covariates are those outlined above. In other words, the ln(odds of survival) are assumed to follow a linear relationship with the covariates. Equivalently, the model can be stated as: E[Yi ] = pi = logit−1 (β0 + β1 X1 + ... + β7 X7 ) = 1 1+ e−(β0 +β1 X1 +...+β1 X7 ) This function has a sigmoidal shape and assymptotically approaches 0 and 1, making it an appropriate choice for modeling a probability measure. For model selection, we started with all the listed covariates and used successive loglikelihood ratio tests to check for significant effects (i.e Ha : βi 6= 0). By this procedure, exposure concentration as eggs did not have a statistically significant effect (p = .1297 in the model with all covariates), while all other covariates were significant at the .05-level (see Table 1). It is important to note that the likelihood ratio test works by comparing the goodnessof-fit of a full model to a reduced model that drops the covariate(s) of interest. As such, the results of likelihood-ratio test depend critically on which covariates are included in the full model. Nonetheless, these conclusions were robust to model selection effects, as long as interaction terms were not considered. Specifically, concentration of exposure as eggs was consistently not significant and all the other covariates consistently were, across many choices of full model. Interaction terms were ignored for three reasons: because there are so many possible interactions that could potentially be considered (almost 27 ), because they complicate the interpretation of the model and in many cases have no straightfoward interpretation at all, and most importantly, because they are not necessary to answer our questions of interest. The best model, according to our criteria of parsimony and significant covariates is given in table 1. (Intercept) fingerling concentration 50:50 Hofer:Harrison 75:25 Hofer:Harrison Hofer weight duration Estimate 7.53 -0.01 -1.63 -0.53 -1.74 0.03 -0.06 Std. Error 0.36 0.00 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.01 0.01 exp(coef) 1863.106 0.990 0.196 0.589 0.176 1.030 .942 p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Table 1: Here, the reported p-values are actually generated using the Wald test, which approximates the likelihood ratio test for one covariate. The results are very close to what is given by the likelihood ratio test where the full model has these six covariates, and the reduced model excludes just the covariate of interest. 4 �The estimated βi s indicate the estimated change in ln(odds of survival) associated with an increase of one unit in Xi , while holding all other covariates constant. For ease of interpretation, it is convenient to take eβi which gives the estimated change in odds of survival associated with an increase of one unit in Xi . Thus, if βi is significantly less than zero, then increasing Xi tends to harm the odds of survival, while if βi is significantly greater than zero, then increasing Xi tends to improve odds of survival. Note, though, that we did not standardize the covariates. Therefore, the magnitude of the βi s can only be compared directly across the three indicator variables. Other direct comparisons do not make sense, because the meaning of a one unit increase differs across the variables. This model allows us to make predictions of the probability of survival for a fingerling at any level of the covariates. For example, a roughly average weight (10g) Hofer strain fingerling, treated at 167 ppm for 30 min, has an estimated probability of survival given by: pi = logit−1 (7.53 + (−.01 ∗ 167) + (−1.74) + (.03 ∗ 10) + (−.06 ∗ 30)) = .932 3.2 Cox Proportional Hazard Model The Cox proportional hazard (PH) model is concerned with modeling the time to some event (in our case, the time to death). The model utilitizes the concept of a hazard function, which intuitively, can be thought of as the instantaneous risk of death at time t. If we define a random variable T to be the time to death, with a probability density function f(t), and cumulative density function F(t) = P(T<t), then the hazard function is given by: h(t) = limδt→0 P (t<T ≤t+δt|T >t) δt = f (t) 1−F (t) = f (t) S(t) where S(t) = 1 - F(t) = P(T ≥ t) is the survivor function. The Cox PH model makes the assumption that the hazard function at each level of the covariates is proportional to some baseline hazard h0 (t). Specifically, the Cox PH model is: h(t|X1 , ..., X7 ) = h0 (t)e(β0 +β1 X1 +···+β7 X7 ) assuming we consider the same covariates as before. Equivalently, we can say that the natural log of the hazard ratio is a linear combination of the covariates. That is, � � 7) ln h(t|Xh10,...,X = β0 + β1 X1 + β2 X2 + · · · + β7 X7 (t) The Cox PH model is known as a semiparametric model because it does not require specification of the baseline hazard; it only assumes that the baseline hazard is nowhere negative (because a negative hazard would imply immortality). This is acceptable as long as we only care about the hazard ratio between to levels of the covariates, because in calculating the ratio, the baseline hazard cancels out, as shown: h0 (t)e(β0 +β1 x1 +···+β7 x7 ) h(t|x1 , ..., x7 ) = h(t|z1 , ..., z7 ) h0 (t)e(β0 +β1 z1 +···+β7 z7 ) where x and z represent two different levels of the covariates. Since no underlying distribution for the hazard function is assumed, the βs must be estimated using non-parametric methods (specifically, the estimates can be calculated by using Newton’s method to maximize the partial log-likelihood function.) 5 �Like before, we can use likelihood ratio tests for significance of the covariates. Doing so tends to yeild p-values very close to that given by the logistic regression model. Again we find that egg dosage is not significant (p=.1493 in the model with all other covariates.) By the same criteria as before, we get the same six covariates in the best model. The model is given in table 2. dur treat ppm factor(color)O factor(color)P factor(color)R weight coef 0.05 0.00 1.47 0.48 1.55 -0.03 exp(coef) 1.05 1.00 4.37 1.62 4.72 0.97 se(coef) 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.01 z 10.73 14.14 7.44 2.11 7.62 -3.09 Pr(>|z|) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 Table 2: Here again the p-values are actually given by the Wald test, but are very close to that given by the likelihood ratio test where the full model has all six covariates and the reduced model has all but the covariate of interest. Here, the interpretation of the estimated βs is slightly different than before. In this case, βi corresponds to the change in the ln(hazard ratio) (instead of ln(odds of survival)) that is associated with an increase in one unit of Xi , while holding all other covariates constant. Therefore, unlike before, in the Cox PH model, positive βs correspond to an increase in sensitivity, and negative βs correspond to a decrease in sensitivity. Note that this would have been the case in the logistic regression model too if we had instead considered death as ”success” and survive as ”failure”. In any case, the magnitude of the βs should not be compared directly across the models, because they mean different things. Again, it is convenient for interpretation to take eβi , which corresponds to the change in the hazard ratio for every increase of one unit in Xi , while holding other covariates constant. An advantage of the Cox PH model is that it allows us to generate survival curves with associated confidence intervals. In all cases, we see a steep drop in survival early and then a leveling off. Non-overlaping confidence intervals indicates a significant difference between the groups. Figure 4 emphasizes the decreased survival among fish in the 60 minute condition versus the 30 minute condition. It also shows that the Harrison Lake strain is less sensitive than the Hofer strain. Figure 5 emphasizes the effect of increased dosage as fingerlings. 4 Conclusions Based on these results, we can return to our questions of interest, and conclude the following: 1. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that the exposure dosage as eggs has any effect on mortality as fingerlings, within the range tested (p=.1296). This suggests that hatchery managers do not need to be particularly concerned about the dosage at which they treat eggs, assuming that they are only concerned with risk of death later on. Note, though, that this does not imply that dosage as eggs had no effect on mortality as eggs. That question was not tested in this experiment. 2. The different strains do express differential sensitivities to formalin treatment conditions. Specifically, pure Hofer is the most sensitive (i.e least likely to survive), 6 �followed by the 50:50 cross, then the 75:25 Hofer:Harrison cross, and finally the pure Harrison Lake strain is the least sensitive. This result is surprising in that the 75:25 Hofer:Harrison cross reacts more like the Harrison Lake strain, despite being genetically more similar to the Hofer strain. 3. Duration of exposure affects mortality, among fingerlings previously exposed to formalin as eggs (p<2e-16). Specifically, longer durations of exposure increase the probability of death. 4. Formalin dosage as fingerlings affects mortality in fingerlings previously exposed as eggs. Specifically, increased dosage increases the mortality rate. 5. Increased size (as measured by weight) increases probability of survival (p=.0004). That is, larger fingerlings tend to be less sensitive. 5 Bibliography Bills, T. D., L. L. Marking, and J. H. Chandler Jr. 1977. Formalin: its toxicity to nontarget aquatic organisms, persistence, and counteraction. Investigations in Fish Control Number 73, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. Piper, R. G., and C. E. Smith. 1973. Factors influencing formalin toxicity in trout. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 35:78-81. 7 �Survival Time across all Treatment Groups Frequency 1000 1500 2000 2238 500 607 308 300 221 15 0 10 0 20 81 1 1 40 0 59 0 60 80 100 120 Survival Time (hours) Figure 1: Note that all fingerlings in the >70 buckets survived the duration of the experiment. Therefore, all those on the right hand side of the histogram can be treated equally as survivors without great loss of fidelity. The discrepancy is due to a physical constraint of recording one fish tank at a time at the end of the observational period. 8 �Egg Treatment, Duration as Fingerlings 1667ppm, 30min 5000ppm, 30min 1667ppm, 60min 5000ppm, 60min 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.05 Proportion Died 0.20 0.25 Proportion of Death by Treatment 0 167 500 0 167 500 0 167 500 0 167 500 Fingerling Treatment (ppm) Figure 2: Mortality rates broken down by treatment group: there is one bar for each of the sixteen possible treatment combinations. To generate this plot, any fingerling surviving to >70 hours was coded as having survived, and all others as having died. 9 �Colored by Strain of Fish 0 10 Weight (g) 20 30 40 HL 50:50 GRxHL 75:25 GRxHL GR 0 20 40 60 80 100 Survival Time (hours) Figure 3: HL: Harrison Lake, GR: Hofer 10 120 �Figure 4: Note that the data for the two hybrid strains and the data for two of the fingerling dosage groups is not shown in this figure. 11 �Comparing treatment effect for Hofer and Harrison Lake 0.8 0.4 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time Hofer (duration 60min) Harrison Lake (duration 60min) 0.8 0.6 formalin = 0 ppm formalin = 167ppm formalin = 250ppm formalin = 500ppm 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 Proprotion survive 1.0 Time 1.0 0 Proprotion survive 0.6 Proprotion survive 0.8 0.6 0.4 Proprotion survive 1.0 Harrison Lake (duration 30min) 1.0 Hofer (duration 30min) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 Time 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time Figure 5: Note that the data for the two hybrid strains is not shown in this figure. 12 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Formalin sensitivity in rainbow trout Description An account of the resource Formalin is a commonly used prophalyctic antifungal and antiparasitic treatment of fish and fish eggs, yet little is known about the differential sensitivity among strains after exposure as eggs. This study seeks to determine the sensitivities (measured by mortality) of four rainbow trout strains, after first exposure to formalin as eggs, and a later exposure as fingerlings. The data is analyzed using logistic regression and a Cox proportional hazard model. Both models yield consistent conclusions; the different strains do die at different rates as fingerlings, but the egg treatment does not contribute to these differences. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gehr, Adrian Rencoret, Lindsay Kim, Soo-Young Vollmer, Charlie Fetherman, Eric Subject The topic of the resource Rainbow trout Formalin Extent The size or duration of the resource. 12 pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2014-05-08 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/2111934e88e2bc7ea1c657b862951458.pdf 5ce6876bde211720c13e1cf7dc5f8b89 PDF Text Text Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Planned Biological Monitoring and Habitat Restoration Oversight in the Upper Colorado River Background The upper Colorado River is an iconic drainage in Colorado that has been severely impacted by impoundments and reduced flows. Trans-basin and local water use divert approximately 67% of the flow of the upper Colorado River and future projects will deplete flows further. There are ongoing discussions on how to implement mitigation measures to reduce the impact of increased trans-basin water diversions. One component is to reduce effects of the diversions by taking Windy Gap Reservoir off channel and constructing a bypass around the reservoir. This would reconnect the river and ameliorate various impacts of a large, on channel impoundment but would not reduce the impacts of water withdrawals from the system. The planned bypass channel offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the effects reconnecting the river through the reservoir as well as investigate mitigation measures to offset the impacts of large water diversions on the ecology of the river. The objectives of these projects are to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures in restoring and improving the ecological function of the upper Colorado River. Invertebrate and Sculpin Evaluations Current Project Description and Status The current work on native sculpin and invertebrate species in the upper Colorado River is being conducted by CPW aquatic research scientist Dan Kowalski. Previous work by CPW research scientists identified ecological impacts of streamflow reductions and a main stem reservoir (Windy Gap) on the invertebrates and fish of the river. Native mottled sculpin are currently rare or extirpated immediately below the reservoir. The health of the invertebrate community declined after the construction of Windy Gap Reservoir. There has been a 38% reduction in the diversity of aquatic invertebrates from 1980 to 2011 and 19 species of mayflies, four species of stoneflies and eight species of caddisflies had been extirpated from the sampling site below Windy Gap (Erickson 1983, Nehring 2011). Previous work (Kowalski 2014) included mottled sculpin sampling above and below the reservoir (as well as other impoundments of the upper Colorado River) corroborated patterns of sculpin distributions and established that sculpin have been functionally extirpated from the Colorado River below Windy Gap Reservoir. Once common in this reach, sculpin are now absent for many miles downstream of the reservoir, but become increasingly common downstream as depletions are offset by other reservoir releases to satisfy downstream senior water rights. Future Plans A large amount of baseline data has already been collected previously under previous projects. To evaluate the effects of the proposed bypass on invertebrates, sampling is planned to replicate the historic sampling of invertebrates that occurred pre-impoundment and 25 years post impoundment (Erickson 1983, Nehring 2011). A subset of sites from previous work will be selected to represent �the most impacted areas below the reservoir as well as control sites. A before after control impact study design will be employed for invertebrates using commonly accepted sampling methods. Five replicate 0.086 m2 Hess samples will be taken from riffles at each study site. Macroinvertebrate samples will be sorted and sub-sampled in the laboratory using a standard USGS 300-count protocol, except that replicates will not be composited to allow for an estimate of within site variation (Moulton et al. 2000). All organisms, except for chironomids and noninsects, will be identified to genus or species while chironomids will be identified to subfamily and non-insects (e.g., oligochaetes, amphipods) identified to class. In addition to the analysis of recent samples, data will be compared to previous collections six and 33 years previous. To monitor any re-colonization of the river below Windy Gap Reservoir by the stonefly Pteronarcys californica, methods developed by Nehring (2011) and Kowalski (2016) Heinold et al. (in prep.) will be employed. To evaluate the effects of the proposed bypass on native mottled sculpin, sampling is planned to replicate the historic sampling that occurred pre- and post- impoundment (Erickson 1983, Kowalski 2014, Nehring 2011). A before after control impact study design will be employed for mottled sculpin using techniques developed on the Colorado River by previous work. Colorado River Rainbow Trout Establishment Current Project Description and Status The current phase of the upper Colorado River rainbow trout reestablishment project, examining fry stocking as a means to increase the adult rainbow trout population, began in 2013. Currently, CPW aquatic research scientist Dr. Eric Fetherman is assigned to this project. Rainbow trout fry have been stocked in to the upper Colorado River study section between Hitching Post Bridge and the Sheriff Ranch every year since 2013. CPW aquatic biologist Jon Ewert, who is responsible for fish population assessments in this area, simultaneously stocked the section from the Hot Sulphur Springs office to Sunset Ranch with similar numbers of rainbow trout fry. To determine fry survival rates, fry sites (four in the study section and three below Byers Canyon) have been sampled once a month June through October. Fry infection rates were monitored by collecting rainbow trout and brown trout fry samples for myxospore counts during fall sampling. Adult population estimates have been conducted in the spring (late April-early May) to determine if fish are recruiting to the adult population since 2013. Future Plans Fry stocking and evaluations will continue each year before and after the construction of the bypass. Myxospore counts will be obtained from rainbow trout and brown trout before and after construction of the bypass to determine if infection levels due to Myxobolus cerebralis, the parasite that causes salmonid whirling disease, are changed due to reduction of available Tubifex tubifex (the intermediate host of M. cerebralis) habitat. Wild trout reproduction response from construction of the bypass and related stream habitat work (connecting floodplain habitats and reducing entrenchment) will be evaluated. Adult population estimates will be conducted to determine if increased recruitment occurs after the construction of the bypass. During these �estimates, genetic samples will be collected to determine the survival and recruitment of stocked and naturally produced fry. Stream Hydrology, Channel Function, and Habitat Evaluations Current Project Description and Status CPW hydrologist/ research scientist Eric Richer and CPW research scientist Matt Kondratieff are involved in technical design assistance and review for the Windy Gap Bypass project and will serve the same functions for the Upper Colorado River Habitat Project. This review and oversight function for the entire segment of the upper Colorado River is important to integrate the numerous aspects of stream habitat work in the drainage with Windy Gap bypass project. Future Plans The Windy Gap bypass project presents a unique opportunity to evaluate various aspects of stable channel design and ecological restoration. The physical habitat characteristics for fish species should be evaluated for post-project changes by monitoring embeddedness and substrate. The project will create a new stream channel on a historic floodplain, and the new channel is likely to experience some adjustments in morphology over time. Monitoring geomorphology through repeated surveys for monumented cross-sections, the longitudinal profile of the new bypass channel, and sediment composition will provide valuable information on channel stability over time and inform maintenance needs. Ideally, bedload transport will be monitored to determine if the bypass channel is achieving sediment continuity. As establishing riparian vegetation will be critical for lateral channel stability, monitoring vegetation cover and composition would help evaluate the need for additional vegetation work. If habitat structures are used within the bypass channel, rapid assessment could be used to monitoring structural stability and function which would inform maintenance needs. Fish Movement and Habitat Use If funding becomes available, additional work will be conducted in addition to the planned evaluation and monitoring, which will more specifically evaluate use of the proposed Windy Gap bypass by fish and invertebrates. RFID (PIT tagging) technology could be used to evaluate fish movement through the bypass channel, adequacy of attraction flows from the bypass channel, and large-scale movement patterns for various species in the Upper Colorado River watershed. Adult fish, including rainbow, brown trout, and sculpins, will be marked upstream and downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir before construction of the bypass. Portable PIT Tag arrays will be used to track movement of marked fish in the areas upstream and downstream of the reservoir prior to and after construction of the bypass. Stationary PIT tag arrays will be installed in the bypass to monitor movement through the newly constructed Windy Gap bypass channel. Use of portable antennas will further allow the evaluation of fish use of habitat treatments installed within the bypass. This work will be integrated with the ongoing monitoring of invertebrates and fish to evaluate re-colonization in the bypass channel itself, as well as the effects on species composition upstream and downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. References �Erickson, R.C. 1983. Benthic field studies for the Windy Gap study reach, Colorado River, Colorado, fall, 1980 to fall, 1981. Prepared for The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Municipal Sub-District. Heinold, B.D., R.B. Nehring and D.A. Kowalski. In preparation. Estimating the density of benthic and emerging Salmonflies (Pteronarcys californica) in Colorado rivers. Kowalski, D.A. 2014. Colorado River aquatic resources investigations. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration, Project F-237-R21, Progress Report, Fort Collins. Kowalski, D.A. 2016. Colorado River aquatic resources investigations. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration, Project F-237-R23, Progress Report, Fort Collins. Moulton, S.R., II, Carter, J.L., Grotheer, S.A., Cuffney, T.F. & Short, T.M. 2000. Methods of analysis by the U. S. Geological Survey national water quality laboratory: processing, taxonomy, and quality control of benthic macroinvertebrate samples. Open-File Report 00-212, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C. Nehring, R.B. 2011. Colorado River aquatic resources investigations. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration, Project F-237R-18, Final Report, Fort Collins. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planned biological monitoring and habitat restoration oversight in the Upper Colorado River Description An account of the resource The upper Colorado River is an iconic drainage in Colorado that has been severely impacted by impoundments and reduced flows. Trans-basin and local water use divert approximately 67% of the flow of the upper Colorado River and future projects will deplete flows further. There are ongoing discussions on how to implement mitigation measures to reduce the impact of increased trans-basin water diversions. One component is to reduce effects of the diversions by taking Windy Gap Reservoir off channel and constructing a bypass around the reservoir. This would reconnect the river and ameliorate various impacts of a large, on channel impoundment but would not reduce the impacts of water withdrawals from the system. The planned bypass channel offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the effects reconnecting the river through the reservoir as well as investigate mitigation measures to offset the impacts of large water diversions on the ecology of the river. The objectives of these projects are to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures in restoring and improving the ecological function of the upper Colorado River. Subject The topic of the resource Habitat restoration Biological monitoring Upper Colorado River Windy Gap Reservoir Extent The size or duration of the resource. 4 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Colorado Parks and Wildlife Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2020 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/5e8c3e42b4fdd973ec616ca8654b6a98.pdf 3e4fc8b4b0cff67214bc0aa22b853a1e PDF Text Text Whitewater Park Projects Guidance for Reviewing 404 Projects �COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE Dan Prenzlow, Director LEADERSHIP TEAM Reid DeWalt, Assistant Director for Aquatics, Terrestrial and Natural Resources; Heather Dugan, Assistant Director for Field Services; Justin Rutter, Assistant Director for Financial Services; Lauren Truitt, Assistant Director for Information and Education; Jeff Ver Steeg, Assistant Director for Research, Policy, and Planning; Brett Ackerman, Southeast Region Manager; Cory Chick, Southwest Region Manager; Mark Leslie, Northeast Region Manager; JT Romatzke, Northwest Region Manager STUDY FUNDED BY Colorado Parks and Wildlife SUGGESTED CITATION Kondratieff, M. C., K. R. Bakich, E. E. Richer, D. A. Kowalski, and B. F. Atkinson. 2020. Whitewater Park Projects: Guidance for Reviewing 404 Projects. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Aquatic Research Section, Fort Collins, CO. 26 pp. �Introduction Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (CPW) statutory mission is to perpetuate the wildlife resources of the State, to provide a quality State Parks system, and to provide enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire current and future generations to serve as strategic stewards of Colorado’s natural resources (C.R.S. § 33-9-101 (12) (b)). As CPW is responsible for the management and conservation of aquatic resources within the State, we are asked to review projects that may affect aquatic habitats or populations. Specifically, CPW staff is often engaged by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to review permit applications related to the design, construction, and monitoring of whitewater parks (WWPs) regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. WWP projects typically fall under the following permits:   NWP 27 - Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities IP - An individual, or standard permit, is issued when projects have more than minimal individual or cumulative impacts, are evaluated using additional environmental criteria, and involve a more comprehensive public interest review. Recreational in-channel WWPs (Figure 1) are gaining popularity throughout the United States with Colorado being the epicenter for WWP development. Although WWPs provide economic and recreational benefits for local communities (Hagenstad et al. 2000; Loomis and McTernan 2011), they can have unintended impacts on aquatic biota, habitat, and river functions. This is especially true when the hydraulic conditions formed by the WWP differ substantially from those naturally found in the surrounding river. Natural unmodified river channels are not good candidates for locating WWPs (American Whitewater 2007). Rather, WWP projects should be located in areas that have already been substantially modified by past human activities. A B Figure 1. Two typical whitewater park structures include chute-type (A) and drop-type structures (B) CPW recommends that adequate environmental safeguards be included in the design and construction of WWPs to assure that impacts to river functions (Harman et al. 2012), fisheries, and recreational angling opportunities are minimized. The intent of this document is to provide USACE with uniform guidance from CPW with regard to project review to assure that the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) is followed when WWPs are proposed, designed, constructed, and maintained over time. CPW offers the following guidelines to maximize the benefits of recreational WWP opportunities while 1 �minimizing adverse impacts to fisheries and river functions. These are general recommendations and each project should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis prior to issuing permits. Failure to demonstrate that the following guidelines were implemented with due diligence will result in categorical opposition to the project from CPW. General Recommendations WWPs are constructed in a wide variety of stream locations utilizing a diverse array of design elements that are unique to the particular design firm and project engineer, project goals and expectations, and river conditions. General recommendations for all WWP projects should include: 1) Early Consultation with CPW: Contact the local CPW Area Aquatic Biologist as early as possible in the design process to obtain information regarding the species presence, fish populations, and fisheries management objectives for a proposed project site. CPW conducts hundreds of fish population surveys on streams and rivers throughout Colorado annually and uses survey results to inform fisheries population management. Instructions for submitting formal requests for CPW fisheries data are available at the CPW Aquatics Data Management webpage. A map of CPW management areas with contact information for Aquatic Biologists is included in Appendix A and available at the CPW Aquatic Management webpage. 2) Monitoring and Adaptive Management: Monitoring efforts may focus on physical aspects of habitat, biological aspects of fish populations, or a combination of both. Monitoring efforts should be tailored specifically with the goal of detecting undesired or unintended impacts to the aquatic environment or community. CPW recommends a minimum monitoring period that includes two years of baseline and five years following project construction. Data collection should focus on documenting baseline conditions, as-built conditions, and project effectiveness with at least two monitoring events occurring during the five year post-construction monitoring period. Adaptive Management provides a framework that incorporates measurable, relevant monitoring criteria and predetermined thresholds for acceptable change to assess and address undesired or unintended impacts to the aquatic environment and communities (Bouwes et al. 2016). Every WWP design package should include a detailed Adaptive Management Plan (AMP). An AMP should identify quantifiable monitoring criteria and anticipated impacts to the aquatic environment that incorporates review and input from CPW and other management agencies to the USACE. A robust AMP will include a remediation strategy that identifies stakeholders, resolution processes, and funding sources to engage if project objectives are not met and thresholds are exceeded. 3) Thresholds for Mitigation Actions: As part of the permitting process prior to issuing permits and project implementation, regulators should work with CPW to establish the level of allowable impairment to the natural resource and develop objective thresholds to trigger mitigation actions, such as requiring structural modifications or off-site mitigation. Objective and measurable thresholds for changes to river condition and function will provide enforceable triggers for mitigation or remediation actions. 4) Cumulative Impacts: The potential for cumulative impacts exist when a WWP has two or more structures. Projects consisting of multiple structures should be reviewed as having the potential for cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts should be viewed as more serious than impacts from a single structure. WWPs have the potential to cause 2 �cumulative impacts to fish passage, fish habitat or both within a single project location or when a project is located in proximity to other existing manmade river structures (e.g., diversion structures, dams, etc.). Some examples of cumulative impacts from WWP development include: degradation of State-identified high priority habitats and creation of fish movement obstacles or barriers that limit access by fish to critical forage, refugia, or reproductive habitats. Popular whitewater park recreation activities on a Colorado stream. A CPW fact sheet that provides an overview of WWP research, impacts on fisheries, and design guidelines has been included as Appendix B. Fish Passage WWP structures have the potential to negatively affect fish by fragmenting populations, reducing migratory ranges, and limiting access to habitat for spawning, feeding, and refuge (Schlosser and Angermeir 1995). Aquatic habitat fragmentation is ubiquitous throughout Colorado, contributing to the decline of native aquatic species diversity and abundance (CPW 2015). The elements that create and maintain a desirable play wave (hydraulic jump, increased velocity, decreased depth, steep-sloping long chutes, abrupt vertical drops, and grouted smooth stream channel) can create hydraulic conditions that can impede or prevent upstream fish passage. Suppression of upstream fish movement has been documented at WWP structures, but the degree of impact varies by fish species, fish size, depths, velocities, characteristics of individual structures, and variability in flow conditions (Stephens et al. 2015; Fox et al. 2016; Richer et al. 2018). As trout are among the strongest swimming and jumping species found in Colorado, small-bodied and weaker-swimming fish native to Colorado streams are even more susceptible to suppression of upstream movement at WWP structures. Migratory populations of native Colorado suckers, minnows, and trout are also adversely affected by habitat fragmentation, with some individuals moving long distances (25 or more miles) during upstream migrations to access spawning habitat (Kondratieff et al. 3 �2017; Thompson et al. 2019). To minimize loss of fish passage functions, CPW recommends the following guidelines be incorporated into the design of WWP projects: 1) Target Species and Life Stages: Design WWP structures to allow upstream fish passage for all species present at the project site, unless there are specific management objectives that warrant exclusion of particular fish species. Fish passage elements are expected to pass juvenile and adult life stages (Forty et al. 2016). 2) Design Flows: Fish passage design elements of WWP structures should be designed to provide passage across a range of typical flows, including flows corresponding with the timing of critical life history movement events such as spawning migrations or access to refugia. The average daily discharge that is exceeded 95% and 5% of the time should be selected for the low and high fishway design flows, respectively (NMFS 2008). 3) Fishway Invert Elevations: Fishways are engineered pathways specifically designed to accommodate fish movement around or through WWP structures. Fishways should provide passable conditions over a range of flow conditions. Fish passage design elements should be constructed so that the upstream invert of the fishway exit is located at a lower elevation than the upstream invert of the WWP recreation structure crest to ensure that the fishway functions during extreme drought or low flow conditions. 4) Instream Flows: Fishways should have sufficient capacity for carrying either: 1) the decreed instream flow (if a Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) instream flow water right exists for the stream or river in question), or 2) where no decreed instream flow exists, a minimum flow volume that is reasonably necessary for maintaining fish passage in the stream or river in question. 5) Attraction Flows: Sufficient attraction flows at the downstream fishway entrance is a critical factor that will affect efficiency of the fish passage structure. The hydraulic conditions (i.e., velocity, depth, and turbulence), quantity, and location of attraction flows are all important design considerations. In general, increasing the amount of attraction flow relative to the total river flow will increase the effectiveness of the fishway for providing upstream passage. The minimum attraction flow necessary to provide adequate attraction conditions for fish is 5-10% of the total river flow (NMFS 2008). 6) Passage Criteria: WWP designs should provide comparisons of hydraulic conditions within the fishway to species-specific design criteria for identifying limiting swimming speeds, water depths, and vertical drops that ultimately provide evidence for the effectiveness of fish passage conditions. Hydraulic modeling results should include depths, velocities, and locations of hydraulic jumps for existing and proposed conditions so that fish passage hydraulic conditions can be evaluated before the project is implemented. Fish passage criteria including the swimming speeds and jumping heights for Colorado fishes are included in a CPW fact sheet on Fish Passage at River Structures (Appendix C). 7) Incorporation of Natural Channel Forms and Processes: Fish passage design elements should function to enhance, maintain or mimic the pre-existing natural stream conditions (gradient, depth, velocity, and channel roughness) found at the proposed site of each recreational drop structure. This is especially important when there is a lack of speciesspecific swim passage criteria. 8) Monitoring Fish Passage: Various methods have been used to evaluate fish passage at instream obstacles or barriers. Fish passage efficiency through WWPs has been monitored 4 �using hydraulic modeling by 3-dimensional hydraulic models (Stephens et al. 2016), 2dimensional hydraulic modeling (Hardee 2017), and a least-cost path approach combining known swim speeds and 2-dimensional hydraulic modeling (Brubaker et al. 2018). Fishway evaluations can also be conducted by marking individual fish and monitoring their movements over time (i.e., PIT tag or Mark-Recapture studies; Fox et al. 2016). A combination of hydraulic modeling and validation studies using marked fish provide the strongest support for monitoring fishways by utilizing multiple lines of evidence. Ideally fish passage evaluations collect fish passage data from a) the pre- project reach, b) a nearby control site (up or downstream of the project reach) that is representative of a natural condition, c) the post-project reach, or d) a combination of some (Before/After or Control/Impact) or all sites (i.e., a full BACI study design). Project objectives should be measureable and monitoring of pre- and post-project conditions should be used to evaluate project effectiveness and inform adaptive management. CPW recommends a minimum monitoring period of one year of baseline and three years following WWP project construction, with an emphasis on documenting baseline conditions, as-built conditions, and project effectiveness with at least two monitoring events during the postconstruction three-year period. 9) Adaptive Management: AMPs should evaluate proposed and post-project changes to hydraulics and topographic conditions including water depth, velocities, hydraulic jumps, and bed drops at each constructed WWP feature over the range of design flows. These criteria should be used to evaluate project objectives and thresholds for requiring mitigation actions. AMPs should be included as part of the design package for each WWP project. Whitewater park structure with engineered fish bypass Fish Habitat WWP structures and their placement within a stream channel have the potential to degrade aquatic habitat quality. Many factors influence aquatic habitat quality and should be 5 �incorporated into WWP designs. The placement of WWPs in channels should follow published geomorphic criteria for physical relationships related to channel width, pool spacing, and riffle lengths to minimize the potential for channel instability and habitat impairment (Leopold et al. 1964, Dunne and Leopold 1978). The valley type, process domain, stream gradient, stream hydrology, and substrate characteristics should be used to inform WWP designs and the placement of structures within the proposed reach. Fish behavioral traits, life history characteristics, physiological tolerances, and swimming and jumping capabilities are directly related to the physical habitat characteristics found in the natural channels which they occupy. Low gradient stream channels in unconfined valleys or plains are typically occupied by fish species that are incapable of jumping over vertical obstacles and have resident fish with weaker swimming capabilities. High gradient mountain streams are typically occupied by fish species that are capable of jumping and have swimming capabilities that enable them to burst through high velocities and turbulence. Some weaker swimming, smallbodied fishes have behavioral traits that cause them to avoid swimming over deep pools where they are vulnerable to predation. Instead, they utilize the lateral edges of stream channels (Swarr 2018). Research has shown that impacts of WWPs on rivers and fisheries is very specific and will depend on the specific conditions at a river site as well as the fish populations present (Kowalski 2019). Ultimately, design and construction of WWP structures should provide for fish and aquatic invertebrate habitat; such structures must take account of the preservation of functional riverine and aquatic processes and maintain the natural aesthetic qualities of the river to the greatest extent possible. CPW recommends the following guidelines be incorporated into the design of WWP projects: 1) Minimize Extreme Hydraulic Conditions in WWP Pools: Natural pools located in unconfined valleys with low channel bed slopes are characterized by predictable and relatively stable hydraulic conditions that provide a balance between feeding and resting for fish. Fish feed on aquatic prey drifting into pools from upstream riffles and find low velocity resting areas close to the bed within pools that minimize energetic demands for fish swimming and maintaining equilibrium. Although WWPs create deep pools, observed fish densities and biomass were higher in natural pools than in WWP pools for trout and native fish (Kolden et al. 2015). A combination of hydraulic modeling and direct field measurement of hydraulic conditions present in WWP pools found higher turbulence (6×), vorticity (2×), velocity (3×), surging (40×), and depth (2×) were observed in WWP pools as compared to natural pools. Habitat suitability scores incorporating depths and velocities for Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) were higher for pools located in WWP reaches than natural pools. However, fish abundance estimates (biomass and densities) for WWPs were lower, providing evidence that the use of habitat suitability scoring to quantify habitat conditions for pools located in WWPs may be inappropriate. Direct measurements of fish abundance (biomass and densities) are preferred over habitat suitability modeling for evaluating WWP pool quality until more research can be done to incorporate additional information to improve model performance. Lower fish abundance may be explained by conversion of food producing riffles to impervious grouted drops over WWP structures, increased hydraulic variability (turbulence, vorticity, velocity, and surging) characteristic of WWP pools, or a combination of these factors. Based on results from Kolden et al. (2015), habitat suitability scoring through use of hydraulic models for pools may not be as reliable an indicator of overall habitat quality as direct estimation of fish abundance. Additional studies in Colorado have indicated that impacts to fish populations are site-specific and can be subtle (Kowalski 2019). If structures are designed and spaced properly, impacts to fish populations can be reduced. In some rivers, WWP structures have been shown to increase habitat suitability and density of non-native and 6 �non-game fish species like White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii) and Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus) while large scale impacts to trout populations can be minimized. 2) Design Pool-to-Pool Spacing to Match Expected Ranges from Geomorphic Relations: Pool to pool spacing within WWPs are often outside the range of natural variability found in natural channels of the same valley and stream type (Leopold et al. 1964, Dunne and Leopold 1978). Most often, pools in WWPs are more closely spaced than what would be found in natural stream reaches of the same geomorphic context. This can result in increased channel instability from accelerated erosion or deposition with pools filling with sediment and the need for frequent maintenance and removal of sediments from WWP pools. Pool spacing also can have an impact on aquatic invertebrate populations. Improperly designed and spaced WWP structures can remove natural riffles from river reaches and reduce the diversity of aquatic invertebrates (Kowalski 2019). Designing river channel features that are in balance with the stream flow and sediment supply of each specific site is important in preserving natural hydraulic and biological functions of riffles. 3) Preservation of Riffle Habitats: WWP structures are commonly constructed using concrete grout, pre-cast concrete blocks, and large boulders used to direct flow and manipulate hydraulics. The materials used for WWP structures either fill-in or replace interstitial spaces normally found in coarse riffle habitat where macroinvertebrates reside, juvenile trout find refuge, and native fish such as Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii), dace, and suckers live out most of their life cycles. Large, grouted WWP structures have been shown to support less diverse aquatic invertebrate communities then natural riffles (Kowalski 2019). WWP designs should preserve some riffles within the project reach instead of converting all riffles to WWP drops. Individual WWP structures require a drop in elevation to function optimally and thus WWP drop structures often replace natural riffle features. As a consequence, WWP reaches typically have proportionally less riffle habitat as compared to adjacent natural stream reaches within the same valley and stream type. A reduction in overall riffle habitat (area) could result in less macroinvertebrate habitat and consequently less food for fishes residing in WWP reaches. Research has shown that in some rivers in Colorado, improperly spaced structures degrade riffle habitat and reduce the diversity of aquatic invertebrates while properly designed structures that include riffle habitat can be as diverse and productive as natural riffles (Kowalski 2019). Riffle habitat converted to impervious, grouted structures may result in a loss of interstitial habitat critical for providing habitat for macroinvertebrates, native benthic fishes like sculpin and dace, and juvenile rearing habitat for trout. 4) Monitoring Fish Habitat: A variety of methods have been used to evaluate fish habitat at WWPs including 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional hydraulic modeling of the natural (control) and project reach incorporating habitat suitability criteria (Kolden et al. 2015). Fish habitat conditions can also be evaluated by directly surveying fish populations (fish density and biomass) before and after project construction and/or within and outside of the constructed WWP reach. Ideally fish habitat evaluations collect data from a) the preproject reach, b) a nearby control site (up or downstream of the project reach) that is representative of a natural condition, c) the post-project reach, or d) a combination of some (Before/After or Control/Impact) or all sites (i.e., a full BACI study design). Project objectives should be measureable and monitoring of pre- and post-project conditions should be used to evaluate project effectiveness and inform adaptive management. CPW recommends a minimum monitoring period of two years for baseline and five years following construction, with an emphasis on documenting baseline conditions, as-built 7 �conditions, and project effectiveness with at least two monitoring events during the postconstruction five-year period. 5) Adaptive Management: AMPs should evaluate proposed and post-project changes to the river environment including pool-to-pool spacing, hydraulic variability (turbulence, vorticity, velocity, and surging), changes to the proportion of riffle habitat, changes in fish population or habitat suitability, and riparian area. These criteria can be used to inform and develop project objectives and thresholds. Sediment Deposition The placement of WWPs in river channels should follow established geomorphic criteria (Leopold et al. 1964; Dunne and Leopold 1978) for physical relationships of channel width, pool spacing, and riffle lengths to minimize the potential for channel instability, habitat impairment, as well as decrease the frequency of structure maintenance and in-channel disturbance. Sediment characteristics and related processes will vary by valley type, process domain, stream gradient, and stream hydrology. These factors should be incorporated WWP designs and inform the placement of structures within the proposed reach. 1) Minimize Sediment Deposition: WWP structures should not disrupt or curtail sediment transport by inducing sediment deposition upstream or downstream of the structure. Sediment deposition can eliminate preferred fish and benthic macroinvertebrate habitats, as well as create favorable conditions (finer substrate) for the spread of whirling disease in trout. Sediment deposition could also result in reduced channel capacity which could increase flooding risk to surrounding areas. Sediment deposition will likely be inevitable at WWP due to the loss of energy over the structure, so maintenance plans to periodically remove excess sediment are needed. 2) Avoid Rapid Contraction and Expansion in WWP designs: WWPs can create a sequence of rapidly contracting and expanding riverbank conditions that lead to problems of sedimentation in pools and a need for more frequent maintenance to remove the excess sediment. WWP designs should incorporate knowledge of channel maintenance flows (bankfull conditions) and the potential for contraction/expansion to induce sediment deposition within WWP reaches. 3) Adaptive Management: AMPs should evaluate proposed, pre-, and post-project changes to the river environment in the longitudinal profile and representative cross sections including changes to streambed substrate characteristics. Monitoring should document areas of sediment deposition, fine sediment deposition areas, and bank erosion. Projects should consider seeking Colorado 401 Water Quality Certification from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and conduct pebble counts at critical cross sections before and during the post-project monitoring period. Pre-project monitoring data should be used to inform project objectives and establish thresholds. 8 �Sediment deposition in whitewater park pools Site Selection Properly locating WWPs within river systems is one of the best ways of minimizing physical, ecological, and social impacts to rivers and streams including channel stability, sediment deposition, fish passage, fish habitat, and recreational angling. Site locations that have been identified as existing barriers to fish movement (e.g. diversion structures or dams) and that been heavily modified by past human activities are preferred locations for WWPs. 1) Step-Wise Hierarchical Decision Making Framework for Site Selection: CPW proposes the following steps be carried out in a step-wise fashion according to the following hierarchical framework to ensure that the LEDPA is selected during the site selection and design process. The level of risk with respect to impairment of fish passage and habitat increases with each successive step. Therefore, more intensive monitoring evaluations should be commensurate with increasing levels of risk. WWP designs must provide justification for the following: a. High Priority Habitat and Special Management Reaches: WWP projects proposed in the following designated river reaches will result in categorical opposition from CPW including the following: 1) Designated Cutthroat Trout Waters, 2) Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species as well as reaches identified as sensitive habitat for State Species of Concern, and 3) Gold Medal Waters. b. Geomorphic Setting: Provide justification for a WWP design alternative that is located in an unconfined valley setting (unconfined valleys have an Entrenchment Ratio (ER) >2.2) and stream channel slopes that are 2 % or less. Geomorphic settings consisting of artificially or naturally confined valleys and Rosgen A, B (step-pool), F, and G stream types have hydraulic characteristics more similar to those produced by WWP structures and therefore contain fish species and assemblages that are adapted to living in similar hydraulic conditions as those commonly associated with WWPs. c. Partially Channel-Spanning Structure: If a site location cannot be identified within the appropriate geomorphic setting, provide justification for a WWP design alternative 9 �that requires full channel-spanning structures. Partially channel-spanning structure designs should be used unless project goals or site constraints dictate that a fully channel-spanning structure is required. d. Natural Channel Split: If a partial channel-spanning structure is not possible, provide justification for a WWP site location on a single-thread channel site. Channel splits can serve dual functions with one split providing WWP recreation while the other channel split is left as natural and unmodified. A split branch of an existing channel (side channel or one side of an existing island) should be used unless project goals or site constraints dictate that a single-thread channel site is required. e. Artificial Channel Split: If a suitable site location cannot be found on a natural split branch of an existing channel, provide justification for a WWP site location on an artificially-constructed split branch channel (constructed side channel or one side of an artificially-constructed island). Artificial channel splits can serve dual functions with one split providing WWP recreation while the other channel split is designed to mimic natural, reference-like conditions. An artificially-constructed split flow channel (constructed side channel or one side of an artificially-constructed island) should be used unless project goals or site constraints dictate that a single-thread channel site is required. f. Technical Fishway: If the site location is constrained such that an artificiallyconstructed split flow channel is not possible, technical fishway concepts (such as a constructed bypass channels or riffles, rock ramps, or vertical slots) must be incorporated into WWP structure designs. g. No Fish Passage Elements: WWP designs that do not incorporate fish passage elements into structures are not acceptable and will result in categorical opposition from CPW. 2) Minimize WWP Recreation Conflicts with Anglers and Non-Whitewater Recreation Boaters: WWP sites should be located to avoid recreational conflicts with anglers and nonwhitewater recreational boaters (i.e., drift boats and canoes). Hydraulic conditions formed by WWP structures can impede safe boat travel for non-whitewater recreational boaters. Within WWPs there is an increased potential for whitewater recreational boaters to displace stream anglers, especially during the summer months. Incompatibilities between stream anglers and recreational boaters exist. Creel survey data from Colorado and Wyoming suggest that stream anglers prefer to fish in locations that are uncrowded, provide pleasant conditions close to nature, and are relaxing. The conditions commonly encountered at and in the vicinity of WWPs include artificially armored and terraced banks with minimal vegetation and encourage spectating crowds. 3) Mitigation for Lost Angler Opportunity and Access: Mitigation should be considered to replace lost angler access, infrastructure, and fishing opportunity. There is a history of new WWP construction within or replacing existing Fishing Is Fun (FIF) habitat projects funded through Federal sportfish dollars at sites in Colorado including Pagosa Springs, Basalt, Ridgway, and Montrose. When new WWPs are proposed within heavily used urban fishing areas, intensively managed fisheries (those with special harvest restriction regulations), Gold Medal designated fisheries, FIF-funded habitat projects, or locations with existing amenities (such as parking access, trails, boat launches, picnic areas, etc...) funded by Federal sportfish dollars or other fishing interest groups (i.e., Trout Unlimited), 10 �reasonable mitigation is necessary. Mitigation may consist of replacing lost or degraded infrastructure and amenities, increasing infrastructure to accommodate the new users, and providing reasonable additional access points or developing alternative locations for anglers nearby. 4) Off-Site Mitigation: Mitigation locations for offsetting loss of fish habitat from WWP development should not occur within WWP project reaches, but should occur in separate locations up- or downstream within the same river watershed if possible. Mitigation possibilities include developing new areas open to fishing access or enhancing fish habitat in an area that is not heavily impacted by recreational boating. Fish passage cannot be mitigated off-site and must be accommodated through a WWP project. Whitewater Park Project Applications CPW will only provide technical design review for projects that submit complete applications. Requests for design reviews must include complete permit applications with all pertinent information, including project goals and objectives, a design report and plan set, assessment of existing conditions, list of river stakeholders, revegetation plan, monitoring plans, and a description of how the project will be maintained over time. 1) Early Consultation with CPW: Contact the local CPW Area Aquatic Biologist as early as possible in the design process to obtain information regarding the species presence, fish populations and fisheries management objectives for a proposed project site. CPW conducts hundreds of fish population surveys on streams and rivers throughout Colorado annually and uses survey results to inform fisheries population management. Instructions for submitting formal data requests are available at the CPW Aquatics Data Management webpage and contact information for CPW Aquatic Biologists is included in Appendix A. 2) Project Goals and Objectives: Applications must clearly identify project goals and objectives, and describe the context and analysis leading up to the established LEDPA (if already developed). The applicant should address the potential for fishery and ecological impacts from the project and how they relate to the project goals and objectives. 3) Design Report and Plan Set: The design report should include a comparison of WWP project alternatives that were used to inform the selection of the proposed WWP design. The design report and plan set should clearly detail existing conditions of the proposed WWP reach, description and layout of the proposed WWP reach, detailed description of fish passage design elements proposed for each structure, description of existing hydrology and design flows as they relate to fish passage design elements, and modeled hydraulic conditions through each WWP structure and fish passage design elements. 4) Assessment of Existing Conditions: An assessment of existing conditions within the proposed project reach should be conducted in order to determine the level of anthropogenic impacts at the proposed site. What is the level of departure from a reference or historic condition with respect to existing hydrology, hydraulics (floodplain connectivity), geomorphology (sediment supply), physicochemical, and biological condition? Consider application of the Colorado Stream Quantification Tool (SQT) (CSQT SC 2019) as a means to assign proposed project reach as Functioning, Not Functioning, or Functioning at Risk. CPW advocates installation of WWPs in reaches that rate as Not Functioning or Functioning at Risk to minimize impacts to “natural, unmodified” river 11 �channels. Ultimately, is the proposed site located in a natural or already significantly modified site? 5) Other River Users and Stakeholders: A complete list of river user groups (stakeholders) should be provided with the project application materials, or at least made aware of the proposed WWP project. 6) CPW Consultation and Supervision: Early consultation with CPW area staff including a description of the longitudinal extent of the project, whether or not water rights are a part of the project (i.e., RCID), and a complete list of project goals. WWPs almost always involve significant instream structures; both CPW and the CWCB believe that these structures should be designed and their construction supervised by a Colorado registered professional engineer and/or a professional hydrologist in consultation with both agencies. 7) Grout: Minimize the use of grout for construction of WWP structures except as needed to maintain recreation function, human safety, and fish passage elements associated with the WWP and as part of the criteria for selecting the LEDPA. If grout is used, recess the grout elevation so it is not flush with the top of the structure elements, leaving spaces between boulders or blocks for increased roughness and cover for small aquatic organisms. Recessing grout and spacing boulders to create continuous pathways in the wing walls may improve conditions for upstream fish passage at WWP structures. 8) Revegetation Plans: Riparian vegetation composed of native species is the primary control for bank stability in many stream types and should be used to improve long-term stability of the project. Revegetation plans should be included with the plan set for the project, including success criteria, planting protocols, irrigation needs, weed control, and postconstruction stewardship. Designs should utilize biostabilization techniques to stabilize disturbed streambanks as outlined in Living Streambanks: a Manual for Bioengineering Treatments for Colorado Streams (Giordanengo et al. 2016). 9) Grade Control other than WWP Structures: If grade control is needed for proper function of the WWP structure, hardened riffles comprised of boulder sills buried in native substrate is suggested as an alternative to in-channel grout. Hardened riffles can also be used to protect downstream riffle heads. All proposed structures (recreational or otherwise) within a project that are necessary to the successful function of the proposed WWP project are expected to meet LEDPA criteria in the project reach. We expect USACE to consider all structures associated with a WWP project to be regulated as part of the project and not subject to exemption. 10) RICDs: Recreational In-channel Diversion (RICD) water rights can be acquired for WWPs in Colorado to provide recreational experiences in and on the water. RICDs should be designed, constructed, and managed to minimize or avoid impacts to native and sport fish. Flows deviating from the natural flow regime, such as water calls during spawning periods or when young-of-the-year fish are emerging from spawning gravels, could have adverse impacts on stream ecology (Poff et al. 1997). Meeting with CPW should be conducted prior to applying for a water right tied to a specified location in the river system (i.e., RICD). RICD proponents are strongly encouraged to contact USACE to conducting a feasibility assessment for WWP development at a specific site location prior to pursuing a water right. Federal regulations do not account for or prioritize permitting of RICD water rights. This will improve efficiency of State resources and time for a project 12 �that is not federally permittable due to either location or design that does not meet LEDPA criteria. 11) Post-Construction Site Visit: Require a post-construction site visit prior to rewatering of structures when possible to verify as-built design and include CPW to identify any aquatic resource concerns prior to rewatering. 12) Monitoring and Evaluation: Develop monitoring objectives that are measureable and use objective monitoring criteria for pre- and post-project conditions to evaluate project effectiveness and inform adaptive management. Comparisons between the proposed and as-built conditions should be made to define allowable impacts and without exceeding thresholds for requiring mitigation action. 13) Maintenance and Stewardship: WWP design plans should address structure maintenance, sedimentation, and debris removal as part of stewardship considerations for at least five years following project completion. Whitewater park kayakers on a popular Colorado mountain river Best Management Practices 1) Spawning Periods: Construction activities that cause streambed disturbance should not be scheduled during periods when adult spawning migrations, egg incubation, or fry swim-up are occurring. Fish eggs and fry may die if construction activities mobilize fine sediment that smothers the streambed in which they reside. Repetitive and cumulative streambed disturbances during critical reproductive periods can significantly affect population dynamics and resiliency of local fisheries. In general, instream construction should be 13 �targeted for the months of August and September when flows are lower and impacts to spawning fish and incubating eggs are less likely. Early communication with CPW is encouraged as this suggested window could vary based on local considerations such as elevation, environmental variability, and fish species present. 2) Invasive and Nuisance Species: To prevent the spread of invasive and/or nuisance species (e.g., Asian Clam, Green River Mud Snail, New Zealand Mud Snail), we strongly encourage that heavy equipment be cleaned prior to and after construction if the equipment was previously used in another stream, river, lake, pond, or wetland within ten days of initiating work. The following methods are recommended for preventing the spread of invasive aquatic organisms: a. Disinfection with QAC: Remove all mud and debris from equipment (tracks, turrets, buckets, drags, teeth, etc…) and spray/soak equipment with a disinfection solution containing quaternary ammonia compound (QAC). Treated equipment must be kept moist for at least 10 minutes. The recommended concentration for any commercially available QAC product used to disinfect equipment is 6 ounces of QAC solution per gallon of clean water. The following QAC products have been tested by CPW and are listed in order from highest to lowest concentration of active QAC: Green Solutions High Dilution Disinfectant 256, Super HDQ Neutral, Quat 4, Vedco 128, and Quat 128. b. Disposal of QAC: Wastewater treatment plants are capable of processing water containing small amounts of QAC. Therefore, rinsing used QAC solutions down a sanitary sewer is a safe method of disposal. However, QACs should be kept out of storm sewers and other waterways. Always dilute old product before rinsing down sanitary sewers directly from the container, and follow MSDS and label recommendations regarding rinsing and disposal of empty containers. Small amounts of QAC from spray disinfection may come in contact with the environment with few negative effects. However, it is not recommended to dump large amounts of QAC solutions directly on the ground. More detailed instructions for disinfection with QAC products can be provided upon request. c. Disinfection with Hot Water: Spray/soak equipment with water heated to a temperature greater than 140 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 10 minutes. 3) Turbidity: Instream construction should be conducted in a manner that will minimize turbidity of the water in the work area. 4) Petroleum Products and Chemicals: No petroleum products, chemicals, or other deleterious materials should be allowed to enter or be disposed of in such a manner in which they could enter the waterway or adjacent wetlands. Accordingly, we recommend that oil absorbent “booms” be installed downstream of the project site during construction activities. References American Whitewater, 2007. Whitewater parks-considerations and case studies. https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship:whitewater_parks Bouwes, N., S. Bennett, and Joe Wheaton. 2016. Adapting adaptive management for testing the effectiveness of stream restoration: An intensively monitored watershed example. Fisheries, 41:2, 84-91, DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2015.1127806. 14 �Brubaker, A., E. E. Richer, D.A. Kowalski, and M.C. Kondratieff. 2018. Making waves: The effects of whitewater parks on fish passage. 43rd Annual Meeting of the Western Division of the American Fisheries Society. Anchorage, Alaska. May 22, 2018. Colorado Stream Quantification Tool Steering Committee (CSQT SC). 2019. Colorado Stream Quantification Tool and Debit Calculator (CSQT) User Manual, Beta Version. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (Contract # EPC-17-001), Washington, D.C. CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife). 2015. State Wildlife Action Plan. Denver, Colorado. Dunne, T., & Leopold, L. (1978). Water in environmental planning. San Francisco, California: W.H. Freeman and Company. 818 pp. Forty, M., J. Spees, and M. C. Lucas. 2016. Not just for adults! Evaluating the performance of multiple fish passage designs at low-head barriers for the upstream movement of juvenile and adult trout Salmo trutta. Ecological Engineering 94:214-224. Fox, B.D., B.P. Bledsoe, E. Kolden, M.C. Kondratieff and C.A. Myrick. 2016. Ecohydraulic evaluation of whitewater parks as a fish passage barrier. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. DOI: 10.1111/1752-1688.12397. Giordanengo, J. H., R. H. Mandel, W. J. Spitz, M. C. Bossler, M. J. Blazewicz, S. E. Yochum, K. R. Jagt, W. J. LaBarre, G. E. Gurnee, R. Humphries, and K. T. Uhing. 2016. Living streambanks: A manual of bioengineering treatments for Colorado streams. Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver. Hagenstad, M., J. Henderson. R. S. Rauncher, J. Whitcomb. 2000. Preliminary evaluation of the beneficial value of waters diverted in the Clear Creek whitewater park in the city of Golden, Stratus Consulting. Hardee, T.L. 2017. Evaluating fish passage at whitewater parks using a spatially explicit 2D hydraulic modeling approach. M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University. 107 pp. Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function-based framework for stream assessment and restoration projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006. Kolden, E., B.D. Fox, B.P. Bledsoe, and M.C. Kondratieff. 2015. Modelling whitewater park hydraulics and fish habitat in Colorado. River Research and Applications. DOI: 10.1002/rra.2931. Kondratieff, M. C. and E. E. Richer. 2017. Stream Habitat Investigations and Assistance. Federal Aid Project F-161-R23. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Aquatic Research Section. Fort Collins, Colorado. 15 �Kowalski, D.A. 2019. Colorado River aquatic resource investigations. Federal Aid Project F237-R26. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Aquatic Wildlife Research Section. Fort Collins, Colorado. Leopold, L., Wolman, G., & Miller, J. (1964). Fluvial processes in geomorphology. San Francisco, California: W.H. Freeman and Company. 544 pp. Loomis, J., and J. McTernan. 2011. Fort Collins whitewater park economic assessment. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Anadromous salmonid passage facility design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47(11): 769-784. Richer, E.E., E.R. Fetherman, M.C. Kondratieff and T.A. Barnes. 2017. Incorporating GPS and Mobile Radio Frequency Identification to Detect PIT-Tagged Fish and Evaluate Habitat Utilization in Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2017.1374312. Richer, E. E., A. B. Brubaker, D. A. Kowalski, and M.C Kondratieff. 2018. Making waves: the effects of whitewater parks on fisheries. Sustaining Colorado Watersheds Conference, Avon, Colorado. October 10, 2018. Schlosser, I. J., and P. L. Angermeier. 1995. Spatial variation in demographic processes for lotic fishes: conceptual models, empirical evidence, and implications for conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:392-401. Stephens, T. A., B. P. Bledsoe, B. D. Fox, E. Kolden, and M. C. Kondratieff. 2015. Effects of whitewater parks on fish passage: a spatially explicit hydraulic analysis. Ecological Engineering 83: 305–318. Swarr, T.R. 2018. Improving rock ramp fishways for small-bodied Great Plains fishes. M.S. Thesis, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University. 89 pp. Thompson, K.G., and Z.E. Hooley-Underwood. 2019. Present distribution of three Colorado River Basin native non-game fishes, and their use of tributary streams. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Technical Publication 52. 16 �Appendix A CPW Aquatic Biologist Contact Information �MOFFAT a Ya mp River Tory Eyre Meeker (970)878-6074 JACKSON LARIMER Steamboat Springs Office ROUTT Meeker Office GRAND 70 EAGLE mp Unco e River a hgr n el gu Mi Ri ve SAN MIGUEL r OURAY TELLER SW Jim White Durango (970)375-6712 Ri o Grande Ri v CUSTER er RIO Monte GRANDE Vista i ve Conejos R OTERO HUERFANO COSTILLA i Purgatoire R Miles 25 50 LAS ANIMAS 25 AQUATIC BIOLOGISTS COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE 0 KIT CARSON Smoky H il CHEYENNE l River 75 100 NATIVE AQUATIC SPECIES BIOLOGISTS NORTHEAST REGION Boyd Wright (970)472-4366 BENT PUEBLO o rf an Hue r NORTHWEST REGION Lori Martin (970)255-6186 SOUTHEAST REGION Josh Nehring (719)227-5224 r i ve Lamar Office PROWERS Jim Ramsay Lamar (719)336-6607 SE mo s aR i ve r NORTHEAST REGION Jeff Spohn (303)981-3634 KIOWA Carrie Tucker Pueblo (719)561-5312 ALAMOSA CONEJOS ARCHULETA nR LINCOLN Office Ala Durango Office Durango Regional LA PLATA Administrative Office Cory Noble Colorado Springs (719)227-5222 ub a lic CROWLEY Estevan Vigil Monte Vista (719)587-6908 MI NERAL t S ou -Lake Pueblo -Pueblo Office SAGUACHE SAN JUAN DOLORES EL PASO iver ree R p Re ork hF SENIOR AQUATIC BIOLOGISTS SOUTHWEST REGION John Alves (970)375-6721 ARA PAHOE ELBERT DOUG LAS Dan Brauch Gunnison (970)641-7070 HINSDALE WASHINGTON 70 r iv e i ver es R l or Sa YUMA Mike Atwood Salida (719)530-5525FREMONT Salida Office Gunnison Office G unn ison Ri ver NE Brush Office a Arik Littleton Administrative Office as R ans Do MONTROSE MONTEZUMA JEFFERSON CHAFFEE Montrose Office 76 Paul Winkle Denver (303)291-7232 Colorado Springs Office GUNNISON Eric Gardunio Montrose (970)252-6017 er Ri v Headquarters A rk DELTA th Pla tt e ADAMS PARK Grand Junction Office S ou PHILLIPS Mandi Brandt Brush (970)842-6330 Denver Administrative Office Northeast Regional Office Tyler Swarr South Park (720)576-9782 LAKE PITKIN MESA CLEAR CREEK S UMMIT Kendall Bakich Glenwood Springs (970)947-2924 MORGAN BOULDER GILPIN e River Blu GARFIELD Ben Felt Grand Junction (970)255-6126 Glenwood Springs Office Fort Collins Office Ben Swigle Fort Collins (970)472-4364 Hot Sulphur Springs Office r o Rive Colorad LOGAN WELD Thompson Riv er Bi g Jon Ewert Hot Sulphur (970)725-6214 r e Rive RIO BLANCO 25 Poudre River ve r Whit er Ri en River Bill Atkinson Steamboat Springs (970)870-2868 SEDGWICK Kyle Battige Fort Collins (970)472-4396 ian Gr e d na Ca NW Ri v NORTHWEST REGION Jenn Logan (970)947-2923 SOUTHWEST REGION Dan Cammack (970)275-9617 SOUTHEAST REGION Paul Foutz (719)227-5217 BACA r ve CPW Region Boundary Created by CPW GIS 2/12/2020 314 W. Prospect St Fort Collins, CO 80526 G:\Projects\Publications\Boundaries\AquaticBoundaries\CPW_AquaticBiologists_2020_11x17.mxd �Appendix B CPW Whitewater Park Fact Sheet �C O L O R A D O P A R K S & W I L D L I F E Whitewater Park Studies RESEARCH RESULTS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES Whitewater Park Research With over 30 whitewater parks (WWPs) either completed or in the planning phases, Colorado is the epicenter for WWP development in the United States. Although WWPs provide economic and recreational benefits for local communities (Hagenstad et al. 2000; Loomis and McTernan 2011), they may have unintended impacts on instream biota and stream functions, particularly when the hydraulic conditions formed by the WWP are different from those naturally found in the surrounding river. The impact of WWPs on habitat connectivity and instream habitat quality have been the focus of several recent studies. Although these studies have primarily focused on fish passage and habitat, impacts to aquatic insects and sediment transport may also occur at WWPs. Fish Passage Impacts The elements that create a desirable surf wave (increased velocity, decreased depth, a hydraulic jump, and a stable, often grouted stream channel) create conditions that can impede fish movement. Swimming speeds and jumping ability vary greatly between fish species. Suppression of upstream trout movement has been documented at WWP structures, but the degree of impact varied by fish size and characteristics of the individual structure (Stephens et al. 2015; Fox et al. 2016). As trout are among the strongest swimming and jumping fish species in Colorado, small-bodied and weaker-swimming fish native to Colorado streams are even more susceptible to habitat fragmentation associated with WWP development. Brown Trout Mottled Sculpin Fish Habitat Impacts Although WWPs create deep pools, observed fish densities were significantly higher in natural pools than in WWP pools (Kolden et al. 2015; Kondratieff et al. in preparation). Habitat degradation in WWPs was associated with the unnatural hydraulics created by the recreational features and conversion of riffle habitat to drops over the wave structures. Design Guidelines CPW recommends that adequate environmental safeguards be included in the design and construction of WWPs to ensure that stream functions, fisheries, and recreational fishing are not adversely impacted. Each structure must be examined on a case-by-case basis, and monitoring and adaptive management should be included in the proposed project budget. COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE • 1313 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203 • (303) 297-1192 • cpw.state.co.us �Site Selection   Design and construction of WWPs should preserve the natural aesthetic qualities of the river. WWPs should be located in degraded reaches when possible and should aim to improve the natural functions of the reach rather than maintain degraded conditions. WWPs should not be constructed in natural, un-modified river channels (American Whitewater 2007). WWP sites should be selected to minimize recreational conflicts with anglers. There is increased potential for boaters to displace anglers at WWP sites, especially during the summer months. If WWP construction affects a popular fishing location, mitigation such as new fishing access or habitat improvements should be considered. Ecological Design Considerations       WWP structures must be designed to allow upstream fish passage for all life stages of native and sport fishes present throughout the annual hydrologic cycle. Fish passage is dependent on water velocity, water depth, vertical height of structures, linear distance of the passage corridor, surface roughness, and attraction flow. Hydraulic characteristics at WWP features generally conflict with ideal conditions for fish passage. Therefore, a fish passage channel separate from the WWP structure may be necessary. The passage channel should meet hydraulic design criteria for target species across a range of flows. Hydraulic modeling of the proposed structure should be conducted during the initial design phase to evaluate potential impacts to fish passage and habitat. Streambed and bank disturbance due to construction activities should be scheduled for a time of year when egg incubation is not occurring. An increase in fine sediment to the stream during incubation can suffocate developing embryos. Erosion control and revegetation plans utilizing native riparian species should be required for each project. WWP structures should not cause sediment deposition upstream or downstream of the structure. Sediment deposition can eliminate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate habitats, create favorable conditions for the spread of whirling disease in trout, and increase flooding risk if sediment deposition decreases channel capacity. Recreational In-channel Diversion (RICD) water rights can be acquired for WWPs to provide recreational experiences in and on the water. These protected flows should be managed to benefit boating recreation as well as conservation and management of native and sport fish. Flows deviating from the natural flow regime, such as water calls during spawning periods, could have adverse impacts on stream ecology (Poff et al. 1997). References American Whitewater, 2007. Whitewater Parks – Considerations and Case Studies. https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship:whitewater_parks Fox, B. D., B. P. Bledsoe, E. Kolden, M. C. Kondratieff, and C. A. Myrick. 2016. Ecohydraulic evaluation of whitewater parks as a fish passage barrier. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. DOI: 10.1111/1752-1688.12397. Hagenstad, M., J. Henderson, R. S. Raucher, J. Whitcomb. 2000. Preliminary evaluation of the beneficial value of waters diverted in the Clear Creek Whitewater Park in the City of Golden. Stratus Consulting. Kolden, E., B. D. Fox, B. P. Bledsoe, and M. C. Kondratieff. 2016. Modelling whitewater park hydraulics and fish habitat in Colorado. River Research and Applications. DOI: 10.1002/rra.2931. Kondratieff, M. C., K. Kinzli, and E. R. Fetherman. In preparation. Eco-hydraulic evaluation of whitewater parks as fish habitat in Colorado. Loomis, J., and J. McTernan. 2011. Fort Collins Whitewater Park economic assessment. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47(11): 769-784. Stephens, T. A., B. P. Bledsoe, B. D. Fox, E. Kolden, and M. C. Kondratieff. 2016. Effects of whitewater parks on fish passage: a spatially explicit hydraulic analysis. Ecological Engineering 83: 305–318. �Appendix C CPW Fish Passage at River Structures Fact Sheet �C O L O R A D O P A R K S & W I L D L I F E Fish Passage at River Structures RESEARCH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES Introduction Instream structures, such as culverts, water diversions and dams, can negatively affect fish by fragmenting populations, reducing migratory ranges, and limiting access to habitat for spawning, feeding and refugia. Many rivers in Colorado contain man-made structures that create partial (obstacles) or complete barriers depending on the fish species and life stage. Habitat fragmentation associated with instream barriers is a serious threat to Colorado’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and sport fisheries. Therefore, it is important that fisheries managers (A) identify and evaluate the influence of instream structures on fish populations. Fish Passage Research Objectives The primary goal of fish passage research is to restore connectivity in fragmented river systems by: (1) evaluating the effectiveness of existing fishways; (2) evaluating the barrierpotential of common river structures; and (3) establishing fish swim performance criteria for native and sport fishes. Current Fish Passage Research Projects Active fish passage research projects include: (1) evaluation of native fish passage at existing fishways located on Front Range transition zone streams; (2) evaluation of fish passage at instream whitewater park structures; (3) laboratory studies to develop fish swim and jump performance criteria for Colorado fishes where data is lacking; and (4) development of new techniques and technologies for investigating fish movement and passage in rivers. (B) Fishway Design Fishways, or “fish ladders”, are engineered structures designed to facilitate passage around an obstacle or barrier. Fishways attempt to incorporate species- and life stagespecific swimming and jumping abilities into designs. Common elements of successful fishways include: (1) low velocity pathways that do not exceed burst speeds or endurance capabilities for target species (Figure A); (2) water depths that do not limit swimming performance (Figure B); (3) vertical drops that do not exceed the jumping ability for target species - note that many species native to Colorado do not exhibit jumping behaviors (Figure C); (4) sufficient attraction flow, or the flow that emanates from a fishway entrance, to ensure that fish can locate the fishway; and (5) maintenance of the above design elements over the expected range of streamflows. (C) COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE • 1313 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203 • (303) 297-1192 • cpw.state.co.us �Fishway Examples Some examples of successful fishways include engineered rock ramps (Figure D), constructed riffles (Figure E), and vertical slot fishways (Figure F). Each type of fishway has advantages and disadvantages related to which fish species and life stages are present and the conditions of the project site. Engineered Rock Ramp Constructed Riffle Vertical Slot Diversion Crest Piney Creek, Wyoming Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Diversion, Cache la Poudre River (D) Rock Weirs CCC Ditch, San Miguel River (E) (F) Aquatic Habitat Types From the high-gradient, boulder-dominated, step-pool channels of snowmelt fed mountain streams to the lowgradient, well-vegetated, pool-riffle rivers of the eastern plains to the majestic, vertically-confined canyons on the arid Colorado Plateau, aquatic habitats in Colorado are as diverse as the geographic regions where they are found. Native Colorado fishes have unique morphological characteristics that are adapted to the natural conditions found in each aquatic habitat type. These adaptations affect the swimming abilities of fish, influencing how they move through and use diverse habitats. Fisheries managers must take the diversity of fish species into consideration when evaluating river structures and designing fishways. Fish Swimming Performance by Family Family Name Percidae (Perches) SGCN (#) Fundulidae (Topminnows) Cottidae (Sculpin) Ictaluridae (Catfish) Cyprinidae (Minnows) Catostomidae (Suckers) Centrarchidae (Sunfish) All illustrations of fish © Joseph R. Tomelleri 3 Prolonged Speed (ft/s) 0.4 - 1.2 Burst Speed (ft/s) NA - 2.4 Jump Height (ft) 0* Habitat Types EP 1 0 1 13 5 1 1.3 - 1.6 1.4 - 1.7 1.3 - 2.0 1.3 - 2.4 1.3 - 2.5 1.1 - 2.9 2.6 - 3.4 3.3 - 3.9 2.0 - NA 2.4 - 4.4 2.2 - 3.2 2.6 - NA 0.1 - 0.2 0* NA - 0.2 0* - 0.5 NA - 0.8 0.4 - NA EP CP, MS EP, TZ CP, EP, MS, RG, TZ CP, EP, MS, RG, TZ EP Salmonidae (Trout) 3 2.3 - 4.0 4.5 - 7.5 1.0 - 7.0 MS, RG, TZ SGCN = Species of Greatest Conservation Need, # of species/subspecies; * = fish species does not exhibit jumping behavior; NA = data were not available; CP = Colorado Plateau, EP = Eastern Plains, MS = Mountain Streams, RG = Rio Grande; TZ = Transition Zone The values reported above are summarized from multiple species within each family and are intended to support passage for juvenile life stages. Swim speeds and jumping abilities within species are size dependent. Species-specific performance criteria should be used whenever possible. The selection of target species for individual projects should be based on the management objectives for the site in question. Consultation with the local Area Aquatic Biologist at CPW is strongly encouraged during the early planning stages for any fish passage project in Colorado. The information in this fact sheet is based on the best available data and knowledge, but is subject to revision as more information becomes available. COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE • 1313 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203 • (303) 297-1192 • cpw.state.co.us � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Whitewater park projects: guidance for reviewing 404 projects Description An account of the resource Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (CPW) statutory mission is to perpetuate the wildlife resources of the State, to provide a quality State Parks system, and to provide enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire current and future generations to serve as strategic stewards of Colorado’s natural resources (C.R.S. § 33-9-101 (12) (b)). As CPW is responsible for the management and conservation of aquatic resources within the State, we are asked to review projects that may affect aquatic habitats or populations. Specifically, CPW staff is often engaged by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to review permit applications related to the design, construction, and monitoring of whitewater parks (WWPs) regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. WWP projects typically fall under the following permits: <br /> <ul> <li>NWP 27 - Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities</li> <li>IP - An individual, or standard permit, is issued when projects have more than minimal individual or cumulative impacts, are evaluated using additional environmental criteria, and involve a more comprehensive public interest review.</li> </ul> Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Kondratieff, M. C., K. R. Bakich, E. E. Richer, D. A. Kowalski, and B. F. Atkinson. 2020. Whitewater Park Projects: Guidance for Reviewing 404 Projects. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Aquatic Research Section, Fort Collins, CO. 26 pp. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kondratieff, Matthew C. Bakich, Kendall R. Richer, Eric E. Kowalski, Daniel A. Atkinson, Bill F. Subject The topic of the resource Whitewater parks Extent The size or duration of the resource. 26 pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2020 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/fc6f904bdf459c75bcbd9c080afbe223.pdf 2a046df682cf51be7a874520eed767dd PDF Text Text American Dippers American dippers are dark gray and have long legs. They live by clear flowing streams. They are the only songbirds that catch their food underwater! They eat insects Illustration by Helen Zane Jensen ©2008 that live in streams. These birds earned their name because they are always "dipping" their bodies up and down. Wildlife Discovery Page-American Dipper/Elementary http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/TR-WildlifeDiscovery.aspx � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/c095c00709a2bad72478841cdb034c83.pdf 7e3c6ba7341124cade57a54caaf9cf9b PDF Text Text American Dippers American dippers are medium sized, gray birds that have long legs and constantly bob their bodies up and down. Dippers are America 's only true aquatic songbirds. They live along clear moving waters. Dippers eat insects that live in these waters. They are yearround residents in Colorado and migrate only as far as the closest unfrozen stream or river. American dippers breed twice a year. Males and females often rejoin and reuse the same nest. Chicks stay in the nest for about 24 days. When they leave, they can already swim and dive to catch food. Dippers can hold their breath underwater for up to 30 seconds! These birds have a heavy layer of waterproof feathers and can withstand even the coldest waters. In the late summer, American dippers molt theirs wing and tail feathers together. This leaves the birds flightless for a short time. e,o "ou._,oO Illustration by Helen Zane Jensen ©2008 ---- Wildlife Discovery Page-American Dipper/Middle School http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/TR-WildlifeDiscovery.aspx � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/a57bcc6c9445d1fe9c6d70a934c19433.pdf 9b68dfb51747c7d9d079d4b02c97635d PDF Text Text Illustration by Helen Zane Jensen ©2008 Wildlife Discovery Page-American Dipper/Primary http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/TR-WildlifeDiscovery.aspx � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource American dippers coloring page Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Colorado Parks & Wildlife Subject The topic of the resource American dippers Wildlife Education Extent The size or duration of the resource. 1 page Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2008 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <div class="element"> <div class="element-text"><a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a></div> </div> Illustration by Helen Zane Jensen ©2008 Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Colorado Parks and Wildlife https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/052475df8051895e85af8986d8bcadca.pdf 28696e1c1e358dfa826a261d7470d7f3 PDF Text Text C O L O R A D O P A R K S Adventures as a Young Naturalist Come on an outdoor journey discovering Colorado’s state parks. & W I L D L I F E �Welcome to Colorado’s state parks. There are over 40 state parks across Colorado and each one is a special place to explore. Complete these fun activities, taking your first steps to become a naturalist—a person who loves and cares about the outdoors. Just remember to explore with an adult, have fun, and enjoy nature—it is full of surprises. We live in a world of many colors. You can see rainbows of color when light bounces off a drop of water or a wet summer sky. Find this feather to experience more exciting adventures! �There is a magical mini-world of flowers, leaves, pebbles, and critters under your feet. �grub great horned owl fox squirrel raccoon black bear These animals are living in their natural home. Draw a line from the picture of the larger animal to its matching animal. Then color the animals. �bee red-tailed hawk woodpecker grasshopper Trees make great homes for all kinds of animals. They provide food and cover. Walk around a tree. Look up in the leaves. Feel and smell the bark. Explore the ground underneath. Can you spot any signs that animals live in the tree? Here is a clue—look for holes, scratches, or nests. �Use the number guide to color this mallard duck. 1 – blue 4 – yellow 2 – red 5 – white 3 – green 1 5 3 4 1 2 5 4 5 4 5 1 2 15 3 4 14 5 10 13 6 7 9 11 12 8 Follow the numbers to trace the outline of the fish. Count all the spots and write the number here . Mallard ducks have webbed feet for swimming. Their bills strain plants and insects from the water. Colors and spots on fish help them hide. Find an animal in the park and watch it quietly. What is it doing? �Use this guide to color these shapes found in the butterfly’s wing. red green blue yellow �. . . e r a es i r e v o sc i d e t i or v a f y M ! Funded in part through Great Outdoors Colorado with Colorado Lottery proceeds. Acknowledgements: 1313 Sherman Street, #618 Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3437 cpw.state.co.us EDU1408_4/18 ming o c e b s, ps in over more e n t o s i t t a s l r isc r fi atu Congr e taken you continue to d fe, have fun v a You ha alist! As you ber to stay s ! s r a natu ature, remem e more park r n about rs, and explo outdoo Design Team: Sandy Berg, Roxanne Brickell-Reardon, Deb Duke, Linda Hamilton, Matt Huerter, Faye Koeltzow, Debbie Matlock, Mary McCormac, Sara Melena, Sheryl Radovich, Angel Tobin • Author: Sheryl Radovich • Artist: Paul Gray • Design: Deb Duke • Reviewers: Roxanne Brickell-Reardon, Deb Duke, Linda Hamilton, Matt Huerter, Faye Koeltzow, Debbie Matlock, Mary McCormac, Sara Melena, Sheryl Radovich, Kathy Seiple, Angel Tobin, Mark Young • Technical Reviewers: Nicole Bickford, Mary Ann Bonnell • Project Managers: Roxanne Brickell-Reardon, Debbie Matlock • Editor: Lynn Almer • Original Idea: Todd Farrow • Funding: Great Outdoors Colorado � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Adventures as a young naturalist Description An account of the resource Come on an outdoor journey discovering Colorado’s state parks. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Colorado Parks & Wildlife Subject The topic of the resource Colorado State parks Education Wildlife Extent The size or duration of the resource. 8 pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2018-04 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Colorado Parks and Wildlife https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/28ccc1db2609b960e7a2a3f46ac8c3bf.pdf 755e68e95d0cd9650506116db08b29ae PDF Text Text The Tassel-Eared Squirrel The Abert's squirrel has long tufts or tassels of fur on its ears. The tassels are longest in winter. In summer, the squirrel's ear tassels may be smaller or they may disappear. r - . ~-- :.-- How can you tell if a squirrel is an Abert's squirrel in summer if it loses its ear tufts? The Abert's squirrel lives in only one place-the ponderosa pine forest. It builds its nest in the ponderosa pine tree and eats seeds from the pine cones! ;- ::;- "' ,. ,: , '~ _,, \\ I·~';> Illustration by Helen Zane Jensen ©2008 Wildlife Discovery Page-Abert’s Squirrel/Elementary http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/TR-WildlifeDiscovery.aspx � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/1bea8609889fc5e292fd3d51e8924513.pdf 84889d50f6124ac711b8b8a05e803c2b PDF Text Text The Squirrel and the Tree Abert's squirrels live in only one habitat-the ponderosa pine forest. These squirrels depend on ponderosa pine for the essentials of life. Abert's squirrels build nests high up in these trees. The nests look similar to a large, messy bird nest. They either construct a ball-like mass of twigs from pine or build their nests within "witches'brooms," growths of small pine twigs infected by dwarf mistletoe. Since Abert's squirrels do not hibernate, they use their nests yearround. They sleep in the nest at night and use it to hide from predators during the day. Most of the Abert's squirrels' diet is made up of parts of the ponderosa pine. In warm months, it eats the tree's buds and cones. They turn the pine cone slowly, like the way people eat corn on the cob, peeling away the cone scales to reach the meaty seeds. Often, they eat their cones in a favorite spot on a branch in the tree. A pile of cone scales under a ponderosa pine is a sure sign that Abert's squirrels live there. In the winter the squirrels eat the inner bark of the tree. They also eat mistletoe and fungi growing on the tree. Abert's squirrels clearly benefit from the trees. What do the ponderosa pines get from this relationship? When Abert's squirrels dig up and eat a certain fungus growing around the roots of the treeEctomychorrhizal fungus-they disperse spores. This helps the fungus reproduce. The fungus benefits Ponderosa pines by growing around the roots of the trees and helping the trees to maintain moisture in a dry environment. Illustration by Helen Zane Jensen ©2008 Wildlife Discovery Page-Abert’s Squirrel/Middle School http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/TR-WildlifeDiscovery.aspx � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/01788ca9f76ae24bbb783adfcca07469.pdf cd5bfbfbd69b9d106d17d56cf6d78158 PDF Text Text � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Abert's squirrel coloring page Description An account of the resource Coloring pages for Abert's squirrel Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Colorado Parks & Wildlife Subject The topic of the resource Abert's squirrel Tassel-eared squirrel Education Wildlife Extent The size or duration of the resource. 1 page Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2008 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Illustration by Helen Zane Jensen ©2008 Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Colorado Parks and Wildlife https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/1f1ef620f6cd84513602d4b86f6379cb.pdf c3d358b7a792034bdce6e44b045b37bd PDF Text Text ������������������������������������ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Documents Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Student's guide Colorado snowmobile training course Description An account of the resource Outdoor sports have always been a way of life to Coloradans. So it will be, in the future, if every participant of every outdoor sport strives to enjoy his liking in a responsible manner. One of the best ways to insure our right to the nonrestricted use of Colorado's outdoor wonderlands for any purpose, is the education of all sportsmen toward responsible recreation, conservation and safety. Print copy: CPW Library - FILE S Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Colorado Division of Game, Fish and Parks Colorado Association of Snowmobile Clubs Subject The topic of the resource Snowmobile training Extent The size or duration of the resource. 36 pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1971 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/">No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English