8251

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8251
• Author: Rakowski, C. L. and J. C. Schmidt.
• Title: The Geomorphic Basis of Colorado Squawfish Nursery Habitat in the Green River Near Ouray, Utah.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: #93-1070,
• Copyright Material: NO

Draft Final Completion Report to UDWR for Contract #93-1070. Amendment 3

xv

21. Swveys of cross section 9 in August 1993 (thick line) and April 1994 (thin line). ......................... 88

22. Comparison of the topography interpolated by the numerical flow model to the detailed bar topography, and 1.5-km

reach topography from video data in July 1994 (see Fig. 15 for pattern key). ......................... 88

23. Comparison of model-generated and field-measured cross section longitudial average bed elevation for May 1994

....................................................................................... 88

24. Modeled changes in topography for a period of2 days at475 m3Js (bankfull) discharge for the model cross sections

of the bank-attached compound bar ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88

25. Simulation hydrographs ....................................................................... 89

26. Effects of a simulated hydrograph on computational cross sections throughout the l.5-km reach. ............. 89

27. Modeled effects of floods on the bank-attached bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89

28. Longitudinal bed elevation for the ~ee model runs ................................................. 89

29. Cross-section swveys for cross sections 2 and 3 during the ascending limb of the 1994 flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89

30. Example offield current map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89

31. Localized habitat availability cwve for the bank-attached bar within the 1.5-km reach in 1993 and 1994. ...... 89

32. Comparison of the area of habitat measured on detailed topographic maps and the area of those same habitats from

the video prints ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89

33. Relationship between area ofavailable habitat and shoreline length .................................... 89
34. Area of available nursery habitats (total [filled X'sl, deep [. 'sl, shallow [X'sl, and unknown [.'s]). and
corresponding Wetzel complexity index (X's with a dashed line), 1992 to 1994 ...................... 89
35. Correlation of total area of available nursery habitat to shoreline complexity ............................. 90
36. Counts of habitats for the 1.5-km and lO-km study reaches ........................................... 90
37. Counts of nursery habitats within the lO-km reach . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . . 90
38. Decomposition of the localized habitat availability cwve by geomorphic classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
39. Conceptualmodelofsecondarychannelhabitatcwve ...............................................90