Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Draft Fmal Completion Report to UDWR for Contract #93-1070. Amendment 3 <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />determined by snorkeling. Determinations of habitat suitability were made from these measurements. The stream and <br /> <br /> <br />the accompanying physical parameters were then modeled for a variety of discharges. and areas of optimal, useable, and <br /> <br /> <br />unsuitable habitat were calculated for a range of low flows. <br /> <br /> <br />Hill and others (1991) used HEC-2 modeling to determine discharges for bankfull, riparian, and floodplain <br /> <br /> <br />flows. These modeled discharges were combined with historic exceedance probabilities for peak flows and flow <br /> <br /> <br />duration curves to determine the magnitude, duration. and hydrograph shape of different flow regimes (for example <br /> <br /> <br />riparian vs. valley flows). While Hill and others (1991) assumed that the restoration of a "natural" hydrogranh will <br /> <br /> <br />guarantee ecological integrity, they ignored many of the other consequences of stream alteration such as changes in <br /> <br /> <br />temperature, sediment load, availability and size distribution of sediment, and water quality. <br /> <br />A vailable Habitat Curves <br /> <br /> <br />Habitat availability curves were first developed for cold headwater streams in order to assess the impacts of <br /> <br />water diversions on standing crops of fish (Nestler. 1990). The US FIsh and Wildlife Service's IFIM and PHABSIM <br /> <br /> <br />(Bovee, 1982) have become widely accepted as standard methods to predict discharge-dependent changes in area of <br /> <br />available habitat. The model predicts weighted usable area (WUA) which is used as a surrogate for inslream physical <br /> <br /> <br />parameters th4tt are utilized by fish such as substrate, velocity, and water depth. The assumption is made that a <br /> <br />relationship exists between WUA and fish biomass. While validated for the cold headwater streams for which it was <br /> <br /> <br />developed (Nestler, 1990), IFIM and PHABSIM have been deemed inappropriate tools for evaluating relationships in <br /> <br /> <br />large warm rivers such as the Green River (Tyus, 1992). <br /> <br /> <br />To quantify changes in available habitat for the nursery habitat sections of the Green River, Pucherelli and <br /> <br /> <br />others (1990) used remotely-gathered data from five different discharges in 1987 to develop a correlation between <br /> <br />habitat availability and discharge for five alluvial reaches of the Green River including the Ouray NWR reach. <br /> <br />Pucherelli and others (1990) found the relationship between habitat availability and discharge at Ouray to be the weakest <br /> <br /> <br />of the 5 reaches, and that there was a bimodal peak in habitat availability at this site. Backwaters next to the bank <br /> <br /> <br />predominated over mid-channel backwaters, and there were more very large (> 1 000 m2) backwaters in the Ouray reach <br /> <br />than in the other sampled reaches. Stanford (1994) noted that the relationship developed by PuchereUi and others <br /> <br /> <br />(1990) for a single year's topography would only be valid for that year, and would likely change in subsequent years. <br /> <br />Habitat availability at base flow is a product of channel morphology, and within-channel morphology in this dynamic <br />