|
<br />.............-...-........
<br />...............,..-....
<br />................ - -..
<br />
<br />...-.---.. ...- .
<br />....'...-......................_.......
<br />...................
<br />..................
<br />.............. ,.....
<br />...................
<br />...................
<br />........................,'.............
<br />. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
<br />....-.............. .....
<br />...................
<br />..............,...-.
<br />....... ,...........
<br />................. .
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />bays such as the outlet of Gypsum Canyon (Photos A-25 and A-26). For about the first year that these
<br />silt/sand bars were exposed, and while they were periodically inundated by fluctuating reservoir levels,
<br />they were soft mugmires (Photo A-27). As these dried, they were invaded by thick stands of tamarisk
<br />(Photo A-28). By 1987, most tamarisk st.ands were 3 to 5 feet tall, and had stabilized the silt/sand bars
<br />(Photo A-29 through A-32), much as this plant has done in the upper basin.
<br />
<br />Fish habitat in this region changed dramatically over a period of about 5 years (1983-1988). The
<br />region was transformed from a slow flowing riverine environment lined with talus slopes to a riverine
<br />channel constricted in width by tamarisk-covered silt/sand bars. The few backwaters that formed as the
<br />silt/sand bars were developing were short-lived for only 1 or 2 years, and were largely eliminated by the
<br />st.abilizing and const.ricting effect of the tamarisk invasion. The only backwaters in the region in 1988
<br />were located between Rapids 25 and 26 (Photo A-30). These backwaters provided habitat for YOY
<br />Colorado squawfish and chubs as well as other native and non-native fishes (See Section 5.2.3). The
<br />low lake level of 1988 revealed that many sand bars in upper Lake Powell had been overgrown by
<br />tamarisk (Photos A-31 and A-32).
<br />
<br />2.6 River Flows and Water Temperatures
<br />
<br />Flow and temperature of the Green River, Colorado River, and Cataract Canyon for 1985-1988 are
<br />presented in Figure 8. It should be noted that the flows in Cataract Canyon in 1983 and 1984 were
<br />record highs of about 100,000 and 120,000 cfs, respectively. These two record wet years were followed
<br />by two more normal flow years (1985 and 1986), but peak and base flows remained high from high soil
<br />moisture content. Flows in Cataract Canyon in 1985 peaked at about 62,000 cfs, although base flows
<br />generally remained above 10,000 cfs. In 1986, flows peaked at about 70,000 cfs and base flows also
<br />remained around 10,000 cfs. The 2 years that followed -1987 and 1988 - were relatively dry years with
<br />peak flows of about 40,000 and 28,000 cfs, and base flows of about 5,000 and 4,000 cfs, respectively.
<br />
<br />These flow scenarios had a marked impact on water temperatures. During the higher water years
<br />of 1985 and 1986, water temperatures did not reach 250C until mid-July and early August., respectively.
<br />In 1987 and 1988, this temperature was recorded by late June. Since fish are poikilotherms, these
<br />different temperature regimes manifested dramatic differences in spawning, growth and perhaps
<br />overwinter survival of many species, including the endangered forms (See Section 5.1.1.3.4).
<br />
<br />..............'.'...............'........
<br />.....................
<br />
<br />....... . ............................................................
<br />..::.S10.::j::.MSTHSD0I10GM::.iU:
<br />
<br />. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br />...................
<br />..................
<br />................. .
<br />.....,........... .
<br />...................
<br />.......,......... .
<br />.................. .
<br />..................
<br />..................
<br />.....,........... .
<br />............,..... .
<br />. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br />
<br />...................... .............................
<br />..............,...,........................--.-................
<br />.... ........'...'.....'...................-............,........-.................................
<br />
<br />..........--.............
<br />....................... .
<br />.................... .
<br />. ..
<br />.. .
<br />..............................................-................
<br />..........................................-..-.....-.... .
<br />..... -................................... -..........
<br />... ................
<br />
<br />.--....... .
<br />............ ,....
<br />.................
<br />.................
<br />.................
<br />
<br />.' ......
<br />. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br />................ -..........
<br />...........................
<br />.............. .. ..
<br />
<br />3.1 Basic Study Design
<br />
<br />The four basic elements of the Cataract Canyon Studies are presented in Figure 9. These st.udies
<br />were conducted for 4 years, from 1985 through 1988. Five study regions were est.ablished to stratify
<br />sampling by morphologically similar reaches of river. Four basic gear types were used in eight different
<br />habitat types. Since a complete analyses of all data partitions of this st.udy design were too numerous
<br />and largely meaningless, data analyses were performed'to address hypotheses directed at the specific
<br />st.udy objectives.
<br />
<br />The methodology used in the Cataract Canyon Studies was basically the same for all 4 years.
<br />Generally, a team of four biologist.s (2 Reclamation and 2 BIO/WESl) participated in either of two types
<br />of sample trips: (1) canyon trips or (2) confluence trips. Canyon trips were generally 7 days afield,
<br />and extended for about 100 miles from Potash or Mineral Bottom to Hite Marina on Lake Powell.
<br />
<br />14
<br />
|