Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11/14/01 draft report, Schmidt and Box <br /> <br />Even with these photographs, we faced the difficulty of how to characterize shoreline <br />complexity at discharges that were higher than the base flows at the time of photography. Two <br />geomorphic surrogates were used to estimate complexity for higher discharges than base flow: the <br />shoreline defined by the contact of wet and dry sand and the shoreline at bankfull stage (Fig. 6). <br />Shoreline tracings of the river's edge and surrogates were digitized, and complexity was calculated <br />for each measured reach. For purposes of this analysis, we assumed no change in river <br />geomorphology since 1963, although channel narrowing is known to have occurred (Allred and <br />Schmidt 1999, Grams and Schmidt in press). <br />The shape of the relationship between discharge and shoreline complexity was constrained <br />in the following way. We assumed that complexity is 2 when discharge is approximately zero. We <br />also knew the complexity at base flow and bankfull discharge. Over-bank floods are not relevant to <br />the modeling exercise, because larval drift occurs during flood recession. The magnitude of <br />bankfull stage was estimated to be the discharge of the 2-yr recurrence flood (Allred and Schmidt, <br />1999; Grams and Schmidt, in press). We assumed that the discharge associated with the contact <br />between wet and dry sand was 33 percent of the difference between base flow and bankfull <br />discharge. These assumptions and constraints led to a relationship that is unimodal (Fig. 7 A), and <br />the shape of this relationship is the same as that measured by Rakowski (1997) in a detailed study <br />of a l.6-km reach near Ouray. We assumed that the shoreline complexity was the same between <br />0.8 and 1.0 times the bankfull discharge. Additional data for our study area would improve our <br />characterization of this relationship, but we can not conceive of how the unimodal shape of the <br />relationship would change. <br />We assumed that there is a direct relationship between shoreline complexity, and the <br />proportion of the total length of main current bordered by shear zones; more complex shorelines <br />have a higher proportion of shear zones bordering the main current (Fig. 7B). Thus, each reach had <br />a value for the proportional length of shear zones for.each day of model simulation. <br />Bioloey <br />We paramaterized the movement of larvae across shear zones. In each reach, the number of <br />laryae entering backwaters was calculated as <br />a - b [cr + (1-cr)(l-NA)] (2) <br />where a _equals the number of larval fish entering backwaters, b equals the proportion of the <br />boundary of the main channel flow that is comprised of shear zones, cr equals an assumed <br />proportion of the main channel flux of neutrally-buoyant particles that move across shear zones, <br />and NA is the proportion of the total larval fish population that has no ability to swim. We used a <br />value of 0.6 for cr in our models; we describe the impact of using other vales of cr below. <br /> <br />11 <br />