Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />",t4~' >__#:'\' ,',' <br /> <br />-, <br />~. <br />..'~~_i- <br />'~- <br /> <br />" <br />-...,; -' ' ~ <br /> <br />-...... ,,", ~........, <br />_ ~_,N~-_ <br /> <br />FIG. s.-8and Bar Formation Near Section 53 (lookIng Toward South) <br /> <br />Sections 53 and 54. Widening was accomplished by erosion of the chan- <br />nel banks subject to the physical constraints; reduction in width was due <br />to sediment deposition along the banks in the form of sand bars. At <br />Section 53, where the width showed a substantial reduction, the sand <br />bar formed along the south bank at the end of the flood (see Figs. 3 and <br />5) had a width of about 400 ft or one-half of the initial channel width. <br />The initial highly uneven spatial variation in channel width was grad- <br />ually reduced during the flood. <br />Lateral migration of the river channel was pronounced along the chan- <br />nel bend from Section 44 to 46 where the concave bank was on erodible <br /> <br /> <br />FIG. S.-Channel Bank Scour Near Sectlona 45 and 46 (Looking Toward North) <br />165 <br /> <br />14 <br />