Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 24 <br /> <br /> terrain. Small errors were associated with relatively flat terrain and large errors were <br /> <br />• observed on very steep, rocky slopes (Bowen and Waltermire 2002 in press). <br />r <br />i <br /> Bathymetry <br /> <br /> Bathymetric data were collected concurrently with the transect data using the <br /> boat-mounted GPS and echo sounder method described previously. Whereas the transect <br /> <br /> data were collected by traversing the stream at a right angle to the stream flow, <br /> bathymetry data were logged longitudinally and along diagonals between transects, <br /> <br />• moving from upstream to downstream for each course. Additional point data were <br /> collected with GPS and conventional surveying instruments to define topography of bars, <br /> <br /> islands, secondary channels, and shorelines, and to provide for interpretation of LIDAR <br /> data. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Composite habitat mapping <br /> As a general procedure, a two-dimensional hydrodynamic simulation model <br />• <br /> (Ghanem et al; 1994, 1996) and a GIS were used to generate habitat classification maps <br /> for a range of discharges at each site. Output from the two-dimensional hydraulic model <br /> <br /> was exported to the GIS, where it was converted into a raster (grid) format and re- <br /> classified. The result of rasterization was a mosaic of aquatic habitat patches having <br /> <br /> specific characteristics defined by depth and velocity. The GIS was used to quantify the <br /> area of different habitat class types at each of the simulated discharges. These results <br /> <br /> were used to generate a graph of habitat class area versus discharge for both study sites. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />