7995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Table 3.2. Sediment Distribution Parameters for C1eopatras Couch, RM 16.5, Yampa River. CCl 11.4 43.7 73.7 2.5 91/16* 28.8 50.4 72.4 1.6 CC2 22.6 40.7 62.9 1.7 91/13* 40.5 68.3 100.0 1.7 CC3 15.6 48.5 n.7 2.2 CC4 22.4 50.1 101.5 2.1 91/22* 23.2 64.0 105.2 2.1 CCS 60.2 109.9 91/21* 58.4 103.3 CC6 15.2 55.0 93.3 2.4 91/18* 41.8 64.0 109.7 1.7 1 ds = Sorting (d84/d1a>o.5 * 1991 Wolman Count at same location as 1993 count (C. MeAda, USFWS, written communication, 1993), and these data (Valdez at aI., 1982) were evaluated in the following analysis. Conductivity data were plotted against discharge (figure 3.17) and a log-linear (exponential) regression relationship (~= 0.67) was developed between discharge and conductivity. Conductivity values for a wide range of discharges (100 < a > 5,100) were plotted against River Mile to see if there were any spatial trends to the data (Figure 3.18). No spatial trends were apparent In the data, but this was not surprising given the relatively strong relationship between discharge and conductivity (Figure 3.17). However, if the residual conductivity values (observed value minus predicted value) are plotted against River MUe (Figure 3.19) there are some interesting spatial trends to the data. Between Deerlodge Park (- RM 50) and the lower end of the upper part of the Yampa Canyon the residual values are negative which indicates that observed values are less than predicted values. This reach of the river traverses the Morgan Formation exclusively. Between the contact between the Morgan Fm. and Weber Sandstone at about RM 24 (Figure 1.3), and about RM 15 the residual values are positive indicating that observed values exe8ad predicted values. Bull Canyon and Johnson Canyon, both of which drain areas where carbonate and gypsum-rich 3.31 Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc.