|
<br />site had substantially fewer backwaters and less backwater area per
<br />mile than the three upper sites.
<br />
<br />Mineral Bottom
<br />
<br />Table 9 (Appendix A) presents the area of all classes for each flow
<br />at Hine2al Bottom. Backwater area was maximized at 3,261 cfs with
<br />3,224 m (0.82aC), followed by the 3,824 cfs and 2,648 cfs flows
<br />with 1,749 m (0.4 ac) and 2,675 m (0.4 ac), re~pectively.
<br />Isolated pools ranged from 0 m at 3,814 cfs to 502 m at 2,648
<br />cfs.
<br />
<br />Table 10 (Appendix A) presents the backwater number, size
<br />distribution, area, and average backwater size for each flow at
<br />Hineral Bottom. Backwater numbers were maximized at 3,261 cfs (21)
<br />followed by 3,814 cfs and 2,748 cfs with 16 and 14 backwaters,
<br />respectively. The Hineral Bottom site had substantially fewer and
<br />smaller backwaters than did Island Park, Jensen, Ouray, and Sand
<br />Wash sites. Backwaters per mile ranged from 2.1 at 2,748 cf~ to
<br />3.1 at 3,261. Bac~water area per mile ranged from only 250 m at
<br />2,7482cfs to 481 m at 3,2~1 cfs. Average total ba~kwater size was
<br />109 m at 3,814 cfs, 154 m at 3,261 cfs, and 120 m at 2,748 cfs.
<br />
<br />Island Park, Jensen, Ouray, and Sand Wash Totals
<br />
<br />The Island Park, Jensen, Ouray, and Sand Wash sites were also
<br />treated as a single unit. Table 11 (Appendix A) presents the
<br />backwater number, size distribution, area, and average backwater
<br />size for each flow for Island Park, Jensen, Ouray, and Sand Wash
<br />sites inclusively.
<br />
<br />Backwater area was maximized at 1,101 cfs with 91,639 m2 (22.6 ac).
<br />There was a significa2t increase in2backwater area from 5,260 cfs
<br />to 2,423 cfs (39,326 m t02 66,091 m , 2espectively) and from 2,423
<br />cfs to 1,773 cfs (66,091 m to 83,103 m , respectively). All flows
<br />at 1,773 cfs and lower had substantially more backwater area than
<br />the 5,260 and 2,423 cfs flows. The decrease in backwater area at
<br />1,430 cfs was related to the situations previously discussed.
<br />
<br />Backwater number was maximized at 1,381 cfs (188). Once again,
<br />however, the 5,260 and 2,423 cfs flows had the lowesZ nu~er of
<br />backwaters with 138 and 147, respectively. The >20m <200~ sizi
<br />class c02tained the most backwaters, followed by the >200m <500m
<br />and <20m size classes. Except at 5,260 and 2,423 cfs there were
<br />more bank-backwaters than channel-backwaters. Backwaters per mile
<br />ranged from 5 at 5,260 cf~ to 6.8 at 1,381 cfs. Ba~kwater area per
<br />mile ranged from 1,425 m at 5,260 cfs to 3,320 m at 1,101 cfs.
<br />
|