Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 I <br /> <br />Draft Final Completion Report [0 UDWR for Contract #93-1070, Amendment 3 <br /> <br />32 <br /> <br />model used by Nelson and Smith (I 989b) for the bed evolution model was designed for channel reaches where the most <br /> <br /> <br />upstream and downstream cross-section towgraphies were identical, and the downstream cross-section's flow <br /> <br />distribution was used as input at the top of the reach. The 1.5-km study reach at Ouray NWR did not satisfy this <br />condition. Additional code changes were made to allow the discharge to vary. In this approach. initial topography with <br />a discharge that over topped the bars was used. Unsteady flow conditions were simulated by using the field-measured <br />stage-discharge relationship from the Ouray site to determine the stage change necessary for each simulated discharge <br />change. In addition, m~cations were made to allow the overall channel roughness to vary with discharge, such that <br />the roughness was adjusted sufficiently to maintain a nearly constant water surface slope through the reach. Measured <br />slope through the 15-km reach was approximately 0.0002 m/m at all discharges; the flow model maintained this slope <br />within a 2-cm tolerance such that the average slope was between 0.000191 to 0.000213 during all model runs. <br />There were some limitatio~ to this approach. By using the initial lower flow topography, vertical banks were <br />assumed for the channel at higher discharges. This was an appropriate assumption for the channel topography <br />measured in the study reach. The radius of curvature for each cross section was not recalculated for each change in <br />discharge. While the radius of curvature does change with changes in discharge, the greatest changes occur for lower <br />discharges that expose mid-channel and bank-attached bar deposits. These lower discharge conditions were prohibited <br />in this model formulation. This approach also assumed that the water surface slope is relatively constant for a range of <br />discharges. While this assumption would not be appropriate for shorter or higher gradient reaches, it was a reasonable <br />assumption for the 1.5 km study reach. <br /> <br />Linkages Between Scales <br /> <br />Validation of Video Work <br /> <br /> <br />From the digitized video prints, it was possible to observe the overall channel behavior of the 10-km reach <br /> <br /> <br />such as the existence and persistence of bars and other features. From the interpreted UDWR data and Reclamation <br /> <br /> <br />video prints, changes in the location. geomorphic setting and relative quality of available habitat were discerned. Using <br /> <br /> <br />the GIS maps of bar topography, the area of habitat digitized from the videos for this reach were validated <br />