Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,. ", <br />~ CH~'l <br />-r.",,"lAnOr~' <br />. PARK'"' <br />,J ,; <br />I ' <br /> <br />,/ ..In.,.1 t..... .:....b <br />Bo"om <br /> <br />/ .~:-"....../. I [RKl <br />// .1 . I G _____/!QJ <br />/......:.1 J ~' <br />( i~.1 ~ i CAN~~~S I '\'PDI..h <br />REGION 1 ... ...., 'II, PARK : \ .1. S.I Juclion <br />l i 'h'- <br />........ . ..J \ <br />r--_ ~.......'.J t. REGj>N 2 <br />REGIPN 3 4- -1"::::-'::" ~ L - - /RKl <br />L _ --..,d _ " l.QJ <br />r--- I r- ---..:."':\-_, <br />REGION 5 ---i-~<,~o<' ._._. I REGION 4 <br />l..r":'l__ L. ~'-o I --....--....-J <br />'. - 0; '-,... <br />I.... .- .~& '_'-..' <br />.~ ~..J ,-0 !~'IDI c.~ ~ <br /> <br />! i~ ~ ~ <br /> <br />,'- J . J HliE-'WUNA ,_J~l <br />I ~ I -L11 <br />. ~ ~. GLEN CAHYOtl <br />;- 'IIA nONAl <br />... ! RECREATION AREA <br />,J" r l <br /> <br />J'-~: ~:.r J~ <br />. "-\.'\.. . <br />. . . . . I <br />Lllh <br />''>.': ,< P~tud' Miles 10 <br /> <br />r'- <br /> <br /> <br />Cr...,,' Junction <br />. <br /> <br />/RKl <br />~ <br /> <br />.HonklYiUe <br /> <br /> <br />Region 4-Cataract Canyon (RK 326-344); and <br />Region 5-Lake Powell innow (RK 316-326). <br /> <br />The river in region I was low-gradient, meandering, and lined with <br />tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) and willow (Salix spp.), with a primarily sand and <br />silt substrate and intennillent deposits of alluvial cobble and rock outcrops. <br />The river in region 2 was similar with a greater proportion of sand substrate. <br />In region 3, the river was a continuation of this channel geomorphology <br />between the connuence and Cataract Canyon, whereas in region 4 (Cataract <br />Canyon), the river was unique for the only extensive rocky habitat for more <br />than 150 km upstream. It was also the deepest region in the upper basin, with <br />a maximum water depth of 30 m at RK 341 (Valdez et a!. 1982). Region 5 <br />consisted of deep deposits of silt and sand, which filled lower Cataract <br />Canyon in the Lake Powell innow. <br />Fish habitat in each region was largely detennined by shoreline type, <br />because much of the main channel had a shifting sand bollom with Iillle cover <br />for fish. Five types of shorelines were classified including (I) tamarisk- <br />willow, (2) talus-scree, (3) rock ledges, (4) vertical walls, and (5) sand <br />beaches. The tamarisk-willow habitat was the most common, particularly <br />along silt and sand banks in regions 1,2 and 3. This habitat was characterized <br />by dense growths of tamarisk and willow with overhanging and submerged <br />branches and root wads. Talus-scree habitat was present below steep uncon- <br />solidated slopes where boulders and other colluvial materials had spilled into <br />the river, sometimes fonning large whitewater rapids. This habitat was preva- <br />lent in region 4 and occurred intennillently in regions I, 2, and 3. The boulder <br />and cobble jetties fonned by these talus slopes created large eddies with <br />sandy reallachment bars and associated eddy return channels (backwaters) <br />that were important fish habitat. Rock ledge habitat was present where low <br />walls of metamorphic or igneous rock overhung the river in the lower reaches <br />of regions I and 2. These ledges were characterized by depressions and <br />pockets worn by water action and were good fish habitat when associated <br />with rock substrate. Shifting sand substrate provided Iillle cover and low <br />productivity; reducing the fish habitat value of rock ledges, particularly for <br />native roundtail chub (Gila robllsta)-a species with close affinity for rock <br />substrate (Valdez et a!. 1982). Vertical wall habitat was prevalent in the <br />lower reaches of regions I and 2 and throughout region 4. This habitat was <br />created by steep, high walls of sedimentary or metamorphic rock that emerged <br />from below the water surface. These smooth walls had few irregularities, and <br />the absence of an associated rock substrate negated their value as lateral <br />cover for chubs. Sand beach habitat generally had an associated shifting sand <br />bOllom and usually fonned the banks of nursery backwaters. This shoreline <br />habitat was common in regions I and 2 but occurred intennillently in regions <br />3, 4, and 5. <br />Flow and temperature of the Colorado and Green rivers varied dramati- <br />cally during our investigation. Before the study, record high nows of about <br /> <br />,~ <br /> <br />lo4ontit-.llo <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />Fig. I. Five study regions of the Colorado and Green rivers in and adjacent to <br />Canyonlands National Park. <br /> <br />of 1,128 m), depending on lake level. The study area was divided into five <br />regions: <br /> <br />Region I-Green River, above the connuence with the Colorado River <br />(RK 0-80); <br />Region 2-Colorado River, above the connuence with the Green River <br />(RK 0-80); <br />Region 3-Connuence, to the first rapid in Cataract Canyon (RK 344-350); <br />