My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8214
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8214
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/17/2009 11:28:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8214
Author
Modde, T., D. Irving and R. Anderson.
Title
Habitat Availability and Habitat Use of Endangered Fishes in the Yampa River during Baseflow Periods.
USFW Year
1997.
USFW - Doc Type
Vernal, Utah and Grand Junction, Colorado.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />at this cross section (Appendix 2, Table 8). <br /> <br />Strata 8 <br /> <br />Cluster 3 (rm 94.0) <br /> <br />This cluster was surveyed at a flow of 330 cfs. A bed profile was done across the shallowest <br />part of the riffle below the control cross section. This cross section had a notch in the bed profile <br />which had a depth of 1.96 ft. Flows would have to drop below 50 cfs for the depth in the notch to <br />drop below 1.0 ft. <br /> <br />Cross section 4 described a slow riffle about midway in the station. Maximum depth found at <br />this cross section was 1.28 ft. To attain a maximum depth of at least 1.0 ft, a flow of 190 cfs would <br />be required (Appendix 2, Table 10). <br /> <br />Cross section 8 was the upper terminus of the station and traversed a shallow riffle. Maximum <br />depth at 330 cfs was 1.57 ft. A flow of 118 cfs would provide a depth of at least 1.0 ft that this area. <br /> <br />Cluster 6 (rm 115.5) <br /> <br />This cluster was surveyed at a flow of 332 cfs (Table 6). The shallowest profile taken in this <br />cluster was cross section 1. This was a wide riffle with velocity over 4.4 ft/sec at the 332 flow. The <br />deepest point on this cross section was 0.9 feet. At flow of 400 cfs is needed to provide a depth of <br />1.0 ft at this cross section. <br /> <br />The riffle at the upstream end of the sequence (cross section 4) was not a problem to fish <br />passage. The right two-thirds of the channel was a raised cobble riffle and the left side of the <br />channel was narrow and deep. The left side (deep channel) should maintain a depth of 1.0 ft at <br />flows as low as 20 cfs, but the upstream cross section (5) needs 52 cfs for a 1.0 maximum depth. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />To recover endangered fishes, the objective is to maintain a sustainable <br />populations size compatible with current base flow conditions. Figure 3, the hydro graph for the 20, <br />50, and 80% exceedence flow, indicates that base flow drops to 180 cfs in 50% of the years, based <br />on the Maybell gage. Ifwe accept the readings for the Maybell gage as representative of the river <br />reach, then we can determine the percent of clusters that have riffles that will maintain the desired <br />depth at some base flow. <br /> <br />Of seven riffles with bed profiles in Strata 6, the highest flow required to produce <br />a 1 foot depth, or 100% access across riffles, was found to be 336 cfs. A flow of230 cfs would <br /> <br />44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.