Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />Conclusions and Recommendations (cont) <br />3. The sieve analysis results presented in the <br />that the channel bed material is well graded. There <br />supply of coarse material to help armor the downat <br />the channel. Calculations show that a grain size <br />would resist movement under bank full flow condition <br />pendix show <br />is an ample <br />am reach of <br />of 1.69 mm <br />4. The Big Thompson River does not have a signifi ant bed load <br />in this reach. Field observations and water qu lity samples <br />indicate a low amount o£ auapended sediment pr sently being <br />transported. Thies la also another indication that the rivor is <br />in a state of equilibrium. <br />5. The comparison of water quality data included in <br />shows comparable values for the Big Thompson R <br />Colorado River. The grab sample tekon for the C <br />has values that are as high or higher than aamp <br />shown for the Colorado River in two locations. Yet <br />River has a much higher auapended sediment load. T <br />that there is a much higher silt-clay content in <br />material along the Colorado River than in the Big Th <br />The gradation analysis further supports this premix <br />there is only 1.3% pnasing a ~k200 sieve which indi <br />low cloy content. Therefore, even though the pereme <br />that the ion content is higR, there is little mater <br />to be transported by sediment affinity. <br />6. The proposed construction of this lake <br />negative downstream impacts after it is completed. <br />the Appendix <br />ver and the <br />allenger Pit <br />e parameters <br />the Colorado <br />is indicates <br />the riverbed <br />mpaon River. <br />. As shown, <br />etas a very <br />ers indicate <br />al available <br />ld have no <br />