Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Draft Fmal Completion Report [0 UDWR for Contract #93-1070. Amendment 3 <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />SPECIFlC STUDY DESIGN <br /> <br />To improve flow recommendations for Colorado squawfish nursery habitat, the controlling physical processes <br /> <br /> <br />and the spatial and temporal scales over which they occur were identified. While nO[ all aspects of the program of Hill <br /> <br /> <br />and others (1991) were appropriate for the Green River, their study served a model for the design of this study. This <br /> <br /> <br />study combined the approaches of Hill and others (1991), Pucherelli and others (1990), and Crowl (1994, pers. comm.). <br /> <br /> <br />Remotely-sensed data were used to assess and measure the area of nursery habitat available at base flows. These data <br /> <br /> <br />were combined with field-measured habitat-quality indicators. Physical channel behavior was measured and modeled to <br /> <br /> <br />determine how the channel and bars change with flood passage and subsequent low flows, and how those channel <br /> <br />changes related to changes in nursery habitat availability. Using this approach, it was possible to assess the year-to-year <br /> <br /> <br />change in availability of habitat, change in overall availability of high quality habitat, and the change in habitat as a <br /> <br />response to peak flows. In addition. field studies were utilized to discern how habitat availability varied with discharge <br /> <br /> <br />for a single year's topography, and how that relationship varied from year-to-year. <br /> <br />To significantly improve on existing flow recommendations of Pucherelli and others (1990), this study <br /> <br />addressed the following questions: <br /> <br /> <br />1) Was the geomorphic setting of available habitats similar from 'eason to season and year to year? ; <br /> <br /> <br />2) What was the relationship between channel form and geomorphically different types of nursery habitat? ; <br /> <br />3) What discharge maximized available nursery habitat during summer and fall? ; <br /> <br /> <br />4) Did this maximizing discharge vary from year to year? ; <br /> <br />5) Was there a relationship between the characteristics of each year's flood hydrograph and available habitat?; <br /> <br /> <br />6) To what extent was current channel topography a result of the previous year's topography? ; <br /> <br />7) Was it possible [0 model the impact of the flood hydrograph on the channel topography? ; and <br /> <br /> <br />8) What physical processes formed and maintained nursery habitat? <br /> <br />The above questions concern many spatial and temporal scales. The habitat of concern was on a scale of 10's of meters, <br /> <br />the geomorphic processes that formed habitats occurred on a channel width scale of l00's of meters, and the flows <br /> <br />responsible for the geomorphic processes affected the whole river reach at a scale of 10's of kilometers. Habitat <br /> <br /> <br />availability also displayed annual and seasonal variation. Consequently, this study addressed each spatial and temporal <br /> <br />scale and the linkages between them. A lO-km subset of a 15-km administrative smdy reach within the Ouray NWR <br />