Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;' <br /> <br />ft/sec, and generally represents pool habitat. It is apparent from field <br />observations at the study site that optimal pool and eddy habitats occur at <br />much higher flows than 200 cfs. Thus, it appears that this set of SI curves <br />may not be applicable at the Spawning Bar Site. It also appears that depth, <br />velocity and substrate, by themselves, may not be adequate to describe optimum <br />habitat conditions for Colorado squawfish. Moreover, species criteria (HSI <br />Curves) developed from focal point data collected from off-channel or <br />shoreline habitats may not always be compatible with hydraulic data collected <br />along main channel transects. <br /> <br />The deposition SI curves suggested that available spawning habitat maximized <br />at 2000 cfs. This number corresponds to a reasonable estimate within the <br />range of observed flows for spawning Colorado squawfish (H. Tyus, U.S. Fish <br />and Wildlife Service, personal communication). The velocity curve peaks at <br />2.27 ft/sec, with an optimum depth of 2.04 feet, over rubble substrate. Water <br />temperatures, which may initiate spawning activity have not been incorporated <br />into this analysis. <br /> <br />2. REPLICATE SITE <br /> <br />The Replicate study site, located at RM 18.5, was first surveyed and modeled <br />with the IFG4 program in 1983. Once again, Wahle made four modifications to <br />the original data decks, (Table 6) recalibrated the decks, and reran the <br />modified data decks through the HABTAT program. Similar to the Spawning Bar <br />site, the data deck used in this analysis retained the corrected stage-of-zero <br />flow (SIF) values, as well as modified substrate code, and a corrected CAL <br />card. <br /> <br />The geomorphic site stability was evaluated in conjunction with the Spawning <br />Bar study site through aerial photographs. Only a minor increase in mid- <br />channel bars from 1961 to 1982 appeared on the photographs. Thus, the <br />Replicate study site was assumed to be stable (Wahle and Johnson 1984). <br /> <br />Calibration <br /> <br />The Replicate study site was modeled in five data decks to accommodate an <br />emergent island at transect 3 and 4, and to model changes in both scoured and <br />filled bed profiles at transect 5 (Figure 2). The lowered profile represents <br />a scoured bed in which the channel is degraded. The raised profile represents <br />a filled bed in which deposited sediments raise the bed elevation. <br /> <br />1 <br />Transects 1 and 2 are modeled as a single data deck. Transect 3 and 4 are <br />divided into right and left channels, with 82 percent of the flow running <br />through the left channel (looking downstream) and 18 percent flowing through <br />the right. Transects 5 and 6, as mentioned above, are modeled in two data <br />decks, one for the scoured channel condition, and one for the filled channel. <br />The five data decks were calibrated and run through the IFG4 program with <br />three sets of velocity and WSL measurements from each transect. Results of <br />the calibration are presented in Table 7. All of the decks were assigned a <br />"good" rating with 83 to 100 percent calibration. <br /> <br />8 <br />