Laserfiche WebLink
no appreciable changes in average channel width or depth were apparent for the 2-kilometer <br />reach. <br />The Green River channel is considerably narrower in reach 2 (table 4); however, the magnitude <br />of reduction in channel width, 5 percent, resembled that of reach 1. Channel width reduction in <br />reach 2 occurred between 1974 and 1981, at least 10 to 17 years later than in reach 1. <br />Andrews (1986) reported a 10-percent decrease in channel width, from 157 to 142 meters, for a <br />24-kilometer reach downstream from gauge 09315000 between 1952 and 1981. His estimate of <br />channel width for the lower reach in 1952 was about 9 percent greater than that of the present <br />study. His measurements were based on only 14 cross sections taken in a relatively short <br />section of reach 2. Other studies have reported similar discrepancies; cross sectional <br />measurements were shown to overestimate channel area on the Platte River in central <br />Nebraska, U.S.A. by Sidle et al., 1989. <br />Andrews (1986) predicted that adjustment of the Green River channel width downstream of <br />gauge 09315000 was nearly complete and would reach a quasi-equilibrium width of 137 meters. <br />Our data indicate that adjustment of the river channel was complete by 1981, when average <br />channel width was 138 meters in this reach. <br />Effective Discharge <br />As reviewed by Ashmore and Day (1988), the magnitude of the effective discharge for sediment <br />transport may not always equal that of the dominant discharge for channel morphology. The <br />dominant discharge for channel morphology depends on environmental conditions, the recovery <br />time for large floods (Wolman and Gerson, 1978), the sequence of large floods, and the presence <br />and interactions of thresholds and feedback mechanisms that are likely unique to the river <br />studied (Carling, 1988). <br />Andrews (1986) equated effective discharge and channel-forming discharge for his prereservoir <br />and postreservoir periods for the Green River. He based this comparison upon his findings of <br />similarity between effective discharge (total sediment load) and measured bankfull discharge in <br />the Yampa River Basin (Andrews, 1980). Andrews and Nelson (1988) estimated bankfull flow to <br />be about 475 cubic meters per second for the channel reach they studied near site B. This <br />channel-morphology discharge is about 45 percent greater than the sediment transport flow <br />reported by Andrews for this reach and confirmed in our study. Our studies of open channel <br />flow near site B indicate that overbank flow would commence at about 500 cubic meters per <br />second. Thus, the available field evidence for the Green River suggests that the computed <br />effective discharge in this reach is less than the bankfull channel discharge. <br />Several factors in the Green River Basin could cause the dissimilarity in magnitude between <br />the computed effective discharge for sediment transport and the bankfull discharge. The <br />amount of sediment stored in the channel is much greater than the average annual <br />13