Laserfiche WebLink
I::i~ri,1 ~~u V <br />cowvor.noa <br />• <br />• <br /> <br />S <br /> <br />It should be noted that the one mile between 2A and 2B <br />had some possibly significant hydrologic features. A large por- <br />tion had sandy bed and banks as contrasted with the cobble and <br />occasional shale through most of the study reach. In this sandy <br />area, the river broke up into a wide, partially braided (multiple) <br />channel. The porous bed and banks combined caith the much larger <br />area in which the river contacts the bottom provide a greater <br />opportunity for ground water exchange with the ~:iver. Also, <br />several pockets of cottonwood trees and thick riparian vegeta- <br />tion were observed between these stations. This may indicate <br />the presence of springs or seeps. These factors lend support <br />to the possibility of ground-water discharge between 2A and 2B. <br />While it also appears from Figure 4-1 that significant <br />gains may have occurred after Station 4, errors associated with <br />measurements at Stations 6 and 7 on 30 and 31 august made those <br />values less reliable. The excellent-rated measurements of 29 <br />August indicated no change in flow over this stretch. <br />For the most part, conditions were considered ideal. <br />The river was at base flow, no diversions or tributaries were <br />active other than [villiams Fork, flow caas steady and clear at <br />all measuring stations, and the weather was good. Due to the j <br />ideal conditions and the consistency of the field data, the <br />hydrologists felt that the data gathered could be given a high ~ <br />level of confidence. Of the 21 measurements made, 15 were rated ': <br />excellent, or within two percent of the actual flow. Excluding j~ <br />the loss area, all of these measurements were within two percent <br />of one another on each day. <br />As a further check, the flow at the last station above ~ <br />the confluence with Williams Fork was subtracted from the Station <br />6 flow (below the confluence). This difference was then compared <br />to the measured flow in Williams Fork (Station 7). As can be seen ! <br />q_q ~I <br />.. ... ... ..._.._ ._. ... .....___.___.. _....... ,...,,,..r....^.. <br />