Refuge | Augmentation| Redistribution | < Selections
Actions > Refuge
-
Natural processes leave refuge for trout.
-
That would be locations of deeper water while flow elsewhere is temporarily too shallow or lost.
-
It results from the tendency of water levels to rise directly upstream of across-channel structures.
-
And, more consequentially in volume, for plunge pools to develop directly downstream due to streambed scouring.
-
The scouring is most intense during seasonal runoff from snowmelt.
A. Examples
-
The plunge pool in exhibit 1 below the fallen tree was approximately 2 ft deep, 5 ft wide, and 5 ft long, or 50 cu ft.
-
In exhibit 2, the plunge pool was 2 ft deep, 6 ft wide, and 8 ft long, roughly 100 cu ft.
-
For comparison, the pool in exhibit 2 was equivalent in volume to 50 ft of stream length.
1. Fallen tree creating trout refuge
2. Refuge from two fallen trees
B. Installation
-
Additional refuge could be created from an organized placement of wood structures.
-
More details are at "Installation" in Augmentation.
-
Structures would be situated across the stream, bank to bank.
-
They would be designed not to flood water outside the stream channel.
-
They would be high enough to make some refuge upstream and to increase pourover momentum.
-
Shaping or a cutout would direct the pourover for maximum scouring.
-
Most streams in the study area have abundant wood and rock along their channels.
-
Structures would not be tall and would not seal, accommodating the passage of water and trout.
-
The tools necessary for installation are simple and portable.
C. Preferences
-
A preferred site results in a directly downstream body of water that is deeper and has an upstream bed slope that is steeper than at other sites.
-
That is, deeper in order to be the least likely place to go dry during dewatering conditions.
-
And a steeper upstream bed slope to bring more water momentum for scouring the streambed directly downstream of the structure.
D. Scenario
-
Will creation of stream refuge as pools, or pockets, significantly reduce the amount of flow entering the main stem from the stream?
-
The question is answered by posing and solving a worst-case, hypothetical scenario.
-
In this scenario, none of the water pooled as refuge enters the main stem.
-
That is, hypothetically, all the water is lost to evapotranspiration (or, much less likely, to infiltration that does not re-enter as baseflow).
-
The specific question is how many created pools, or pockets, would it take to reduce flow at the mouth of stream by 0.1 percent (0.001)?
-
Assume the pools are 4' wide by 4' long by 2' deep.
-
Evapotranspiration is greatest in August due to highest air temperatures, so August flow is assumed, too, which is the lowest of the 3 summer months.
-
Assumed, also, is a small stream size, 3 cfs, which is consistent with developing a worst-case scenario.
-
From scenario calculation, it was determined to require an amount of water loss equivalent to 251 pools to reduce a 3-cfs August flow by 0.1 percent.
-
That is, the volume of 251 pools, 4' x 4' x 2' in size, would be 0.1 percent of the total amount of water discharged over 31 days at 3 cfs.
E. Interpretation
-
What is an example upper Dolores basin stream setting for interpreting these results?
-
Wildcat is a small stream with 3 cfs mean August flow (as in the scenario), based on application of the U.S. Geological Survey program StreamStats.
-
A reasonable objective could be installation of 30 structures in the lower 1.75 miles of the stream, which would create 60 new refuge pools.
-
Applying the worst-case scenario assumptions, total water loss at those 60 pools hypothetically would reduce August flow by 0.02 percent.
-
If drought conditions diminished mean flow to 1 cfs, or 1/3 of the StreamStats value, the August stream flow would be reduced by 0.07 percent.
-
That assumes the same amount of water loss as in non-drought conditions, which is additionally conservative since pools will have smaller hypothetical volumes to lose due to drought.
-
Neither of those hypothetical flow decreases, 0.02 or 0.07 percent, are problem reductions.
-
As well, no new water loss is expected since only depth is increased from pools, not surface area, so no opportunity for evapotranspiration to increase.
-
Installation of 30 structures is an estimated one week of work for a crew of 4 personnel.
Refuge | Augmentation| Redistribution | < Selections