Laserfiche WebLink
Table 5. Percentage of riverbank bordering mapped cover classes between sample stations US <br />and D5. <br />~J <br />Riparian Shrub <br />Immature Riparian Woodland <br />Mature Ripazian Woodland <br />Herbaceous vegetation <br />Riprap <br />Cobble <br />Eroded (vertical soil banks) <br />Upstream Downstream <br />of Dischar¢e of Dischar¢e <br />13 20 <br />18 6 <br />2 21 <br />0 6 <br />47 23 <br />19 19 <br />100 100 <br />discharge point, and gradually decreased to close to ambient upstream values by the farthest <br />downstream station at DS (Figure 4). The presence of the plume was also detectable to a lesser <br />extent by temperature measurements. However, the temperature measurements shown in <br />Figure 4 were also influenced by time of day and the gradual warming of the river water. The <br />field meastuemenu were taken at the same time that water samples were collected, and it took <br />• several hours to complete this task. This was more than enough time for noticeable warming to <br />occur. Measurements were stoned at the farthest downstream station, working upstream, and <br />this produced an upwazd drift in temperatures seen on Figure 4. The effect of the plume on <br />field pH measurements was less obvious. An upward spike immediately downstream of the <br />discharge can be seen in the October measurements, but is absent or muted in the Mazch data. <br />We believe the downwazd spike in the March pH data just upstream of the discharge to be an <br />anomalous value unrepresentative of either the river water or the plume. Dissolved oxygen <br />measurements indicated that the water was saturated with oxygen throughout the system and <br />concentrations varied according to water temperature. A complete table of all field <br />measurements, including those taken of the discharge, is given in Appendix 5. <br />Analytical results from the water samples aze shown for selected pazameters in Figures 5 and <br />6. The patterns shown by the data within each season aze consistent, with the October data <br />showing a greater plume effect than the Mazch data. In fact, the sample for station Dl <br />immediately downstream of the discharge poim appears to be representative of the river water, <br />and we suspect that it was taken outside of the plume (the plume is very narrow at Dl, so this <br />could easily have happened). The analytical data from the October samples appeaz to be <br />consistent with the conductivity field measurements. Results of laboratory analyses for all <br />water samples are shown in Appendix 5. <br />• 16 <br />