Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Table <br /> <br />LIST OF TABLES (cont.) <br /> <br />Page <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />Direct comparison of the R-2 Cross and IFG4 <br />methods for best accuracy in predicting field <br />velocity measurements . . . . <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />Comparison of the R-2 Cross and IFG4 methods <br />for the magnitude of error between average <br />predicted velocities and field measured <br />average velocities determined at high and <br />low calibration flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />Comparison of the R-2 Cross with the IFG4 <br />methods for the magnitude of error in pre- <br />dicted velocities at high and low discharge <br />(Q) calibration flows . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />Travel time and data collection costs for <br />Colorado Phase II Instream Flow Study versus <br />stream width . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />33 <br /> <br /> 18 Travel time costs, cross section time costs, <br /> and total costs per visit for three similar <br /> rivers . . . . . 34 <br />e 19 Total costs per visit for three similar size <br /> study streams . . . . . . . . . 35 <br /> 20 Actual costs and percentage of the total cost <br /> broken out by major category . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />-_.............~ <br /> <br />iv <br />