Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />DISCHARGE, CFS <br />6,000 <br /> <br />LITTLE SNAKE RIVER <br /> <br />5,000 ....................................................................................................................................................................... <br /> <br />* Rei MEASURMENT <br />4,000 ....................................................................................................................................................................... <br /> <br />3,000 ....................................................................................................................................................................... <br /> <br />2,000 ....................................................................................................................................................................... <br /> <br />o <br />MAR <br /> <br /> <br />1,000 ....................................................... ..... .... .. .............................................................................................. <br /> <br />APR <br /> <br />MAY <br /> <br />JUNE <br />DATE <br /> <br />JUL <br /> <br />AUG <br /> <br />Figure 3.5 1989 Runoff season hydrograph at Dixon. <br /> <br />The three sampling periods completed in 1989 were May 24-26, June 5-7 and June 23.25. A late <br />start on the stream gaging effort did not allow measurement on the rising limb, or near peak flow, but did <br />include a relatively wide range of recession flows. Note that the telemetry data for the Dixon and Lily <br />gages was adopted on the first two trips (5/24 and 6/06), and only on the third trip were these sites gaged. <br /> <br />The data collected were found to be in good agreement with USGS data taken during the same <br />runoff period. The stream gaging results at Lily on 6/24/89 are plotted with the preliminary USGS flow <br />record in Fig. 3.5 showing favorable comparison. Gaged data at Juniper Hot Springs bridge, located <br />slightly upstream of the Maybell gage, are plotted on the Maybell hydrograph (Fig. 3.3) and also agree well. <br />These results conftrm the sampling and data reduction techniques and provide confidence in the resulting <br />stream flow measurements. <br /> <br />35 Sediment Transport Data <br /> <br />Sediment measurements were made with suspended load samplers and Helley-Smith bedload <br />samplers (see Section 3.3.2). Note that the Helley-Smith sampler does capture near bed suspended <br />sediment greater than 0.25 mm, thus the sample results are not strictly synonymous with bedload. For <br />practical purposes, the sum of the suspended sediment load (based on the measured zone concentration <br />and total flow rate) and the Helley-Smith load may be considered as the total sediment (tons/day). <br />However, in a precise interpretation this procedure results in a double counting of portions of the near bed <br />suspended sediment. Given the natural variability of sediment movement and the accuracy of sediment <br />transport measurement, this problem was not considered significant and no correction was attempted. <br /> <br />The results from the sediment and stream gaging efforts are summarized in Table 3.1. The table <br />consists of water discharge, suspended sediment, Helley-Smith, and an estimate of bed material load. The <br />water discharge (ColI) was measured during stream gaging for all but four flows which were determined <br /> <br />3-5 <br />