Laserfiche WebLink
<br />may control bar development at this site. These spurs are present to a greater <br />degree in 1994 (Fig. 16). The spurs are absent in 1995; however, complexity and <br />availability of shallow habitats remains high. <br /> <br />Mineral Bottom <br />Cross-sections <br />Passage of the 1996 flood did not change the bed topography at cross-section 2 <br />(Fig. 13a). Far less bar building occurs at Mineral Bottom than at Ouray during <br />high flows. The bed elevation remains more than 3.5 m below the high water <br />surface (Fig. 13b). This is evident in most of the cross sections at Mineral <br />Bottom. Only cross sections 3, 7 and 8 display significant deposition during the <br />receding limb with 7 and 8 mainly filling in the main channel (App. D). Thus, <br />deposition in cross-sections 7 and 8 serves to flatten the lateral bed profile and <br />does not build bars. <br />The differences in geomorphic behavior between Ouray and Mineral <br />Bottom could be the result of channel width. The average of the high water <br />widthto depth ratios at Ouray is 41, while at Mineral Bottom it is 30. These <br />ratios are included on the cross section plots. Another possible factor could be <br />the sediment load. Explaining these differences is a primary objective of this <br />study. <br /> <br />Topographic Maps <br />Multi-year comparisons, such as those discussed for the Ouray reach, are not <br />possible at Mineral Bottom because it was not mapped previously. <br />This year, 1996, was the first year a topographic map of the study reach at <br />Mineral Bottom was made. Comparison of this map with the 1996 map of Ouray <br />shows that channel complexity and subsequent habitat availability are lower at <br />Mineral Bottom. <br /> <br />13 <br />