Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />, . <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />figure 8, and the respective values were ~lotted against the <br />computed sediment yields. For this cc)fT,~arisJn, sho\'m in figure <br />ment yields were adjusted to 1,500 mi2 (3.900 ~m2), in order to <br />\'Iith the Langbein-Schum:rl (1958) relatio:l. <br /> <br />correspond i ng <br />10, "J I sed i - <br />be compatible <br /> <br />The sediment y~elds determined at 13 of the 17 gaging stations are <br />co~siderably less than the estimates that ~ould have been made using the <br />Langbein-Schumm (1958) relation, as sho..m in f:gure 10. This discrepancy may <br />be explained, in part, by recent regional trends tm/ards channel aggradation. <br />Studies by Leopold, Emmett, and ,>.4,yrick (1;66) and Emmett (19:L4.!have sho','m <br />that small perenniai and ephemeral ~treG.~1 cnanI1els throughouF the Rocky <br />Mountain'region-' have been aggrading-'since about 1950; that is, sE:diment is <br />being stored in~ the.chann.el network. L. I~. Brush .(oral commun., 1377) noted <br />extensive and rapid aggradation_ ot. SOnl-e st,-e'am channeis tributary to the <br />Little Snake River durin-g-t:he late 1950's and early 1960's. In contrast, <br />channel d.egr-~t:on was widespread throughout the region from 1880 to 1950 <br />(Bai ley, 1935; Bryan, 1941; Hack, 1942; Thorn\oJaite and others, 1942; Leopold <br />and Mtller, 1954; Mi ller and Wendorf,. 1958). The factors that have caused <br />this regional change are not we1 1 understood. Unfortunately, no sediment <br />records at gaging stations in t~e Yampa River basin cover the pre- and post- <br />1950 period sufficiently well to confirm that sediment loads have actual iy <br />decreased. Only four dai I~ sedinent stations were operated in the Colorado <br />River basin prior to 1948, and all of these have been affected by the <br />construction of large reservoirs in the past 30 years. <br /> <br />The data used by Langbein and Schumm (1958) 1n their nationwide study <br />were collected prior to 1957 and therefore represent primarily a period prior <br />to observed channel aggradation. Conversely, most of the data used ;n this <br />investigation for the Yampa River basin have been collected since 1975, and <br />no data were collected prior to 1950. Thus, the data for the Yampa River <br />basin represent the period of observed channel aggradation. Therefore, it is <br />probable that generally smaller sediment yields have occurred for a given <br />a:Tiount of mean-annual precipitation, as indicated in figure 10. This <br />decrease in sediment yield probably is due to the storage of sediment in the <br />channels of small streams throughout the YaIT:pa River basin. <br /> <br />ESTIMATED INCREASE IN SEDIMENT YIELDS DUE TO SURFACE <br />MINING IN THE YAHPA RIVER BASIN <br /> <br />Large increases in the volune 0f coai ~ined from the Yampa River basin <br />are anticipated during the next 15 years. Most of the additional production <br />during the next 15 years will be by sur;ace ~ining (U.S. Department of the <br />Interior, 1976; Udis and others, 1977). As a result, there \'1; J J be an <br />increase in land disturbance and probably an increase in the quantity of <br />sediment supplied to the stream chan~ets draining the surface-mined areas. <br />The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87) <br />requires that surface-mined areas must be reclaimed and revegetated according <br />to specified standards. During and im~ediately following mining, however, <br />the hi llslopes wi I I be unvegetated, wi II have no soil, and,in many insta0ces, <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />