Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br />~? <br /> <br />(ncc:r hc~J <br /> <br />0417 <br /> <br />As in the previous solution, the water-table gradient is directed <br /> <br />toward the reservoir alone most of its shoreline under steady-state <br /> <br />conditions (fig. 6). Seepage.10sses from the proposed reservoir were <br /> <br />limited to the first 1 mi (1.6 km) upstream from the proposed dam. The <br /> <br />~ 3 <br />rate of loss from the simulated reservoir was computed to.be 2 ft /s <br /> <br />3 <br />(0.06 m Is). Ground-water discharge to the reservoir along the rest of <br />3 3 <br />the shoreline was found to be 27 ft /s (0.76 m Is) resulting in a net <br /> <br />gain of 25 ft3/s (0.71 m3/s) as given in table 2. <br /> <br />The change in water-table altitude caused by the simulated reser- <br /> <br />voir pool at 4,383 ft (1,336 m) is shown on figure 7. The change in <br /> <br />water-table altitude is generally less than that for the preceding <br /> <br />solution. Because the water table is generally lower, there are no <br /> <br />areas where the water table is at land surface except along the streams. <br /> <br />,,'- S <br />