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