Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Maximum stage change occurred when flows of 800 cfs were followed by 4,200 cis for <br /> <br /> <br />a duration of 8 hours. This resulted in a stage change of 58 cm at Mitten Park, 46 cm at <br /> <br /> <br />Jensen, and 15 cm at Ouray. The 4-hour scenario produced stage changes of 46,37, and 12 <br /> <br /> <br />cm, respectively. Stage changes for the 1 and 2-hour scenarios were somewhat less. The <br /> <br /> <br />attenuation phenomenon was illustrated by diminished total and stage change rate with <br /> <br /> <br />distance from the dam, as well as increased time for the change to occur. <br /> <br /> <br />Predicted stage change rates under the 8-hour scenario were 7.2 and 6.5 cm/h at <br /> <br /> <br />Mitten Park and Jensen, respectively. This rate dissipated to 1.3 cm/h by the time the flow <br /> <br /> <br />reached Ouray. Under the 4-hour scenario, rates of 5.7 and 5.2 cm/h were predicted at <br /> <br /> <br />Mitten Park and Jensen, respectively. A change in stage caused by this sudden increase in <br /> <br /> <br />discharge was expected approximately 24, 38, and 58 hours later at Mitten Park, Jensen <br /> <br /> <br />Bridge, and Ouray Bridge, respectively. The rate at which a given change in flow travels <br /> <br /> <br />downstream depends on water volume and flow duration preceding as well as following the <br /> <br /> <br />change. A greater volume of water following a flow change can essentially push that change <br /> <br /> <br />downstream faster. This investigation also showed that frazil ice appeared to slow the <br /> <br /> <br />downstream rate of change. <br /> <br /> <br />Temperature and Ice Conditions <br /> <br />Ice condItions on the Green River were different during the two winters (Table 2), <br /> <br />primarily because of air temperatures. Winter 1 (1986-87) was warmer than normal with <br /> <br />little ice formation, while Winter 2 (1987-88) was colder than normal with substantial ice <br /> <br />development. Water clarity appeared higher in Winter 2, probably as a result of lower flow <br />