Laserfiche WebLink
~oo...~,.o.~ <br />~~ <br />• <br />• <br />4.0 RESULTS <br />4.1 Discharge Measurements <br />Data from all four days indicated that there was no <br />significant increase in flow across the reach of interest ex- <br />cept for that contributed by Williams Fork. However, on each <br />day a significant loss was measured. This loss was pinpointed <br />on the final day to the 800 foot stretch between Stations 3A <br />and 4. Discharge data and flora losses are graphically displayed <br />in Figure 4-1. The discharge data have been compiled in Table <br />4-1. Losses over the stretch including Stations 3A and 4 ranged <br />from 10 to 17 cfs and averaged 14 cfs or about 6 percent of the <br />average upstream flow over the four days. .Losses across the en- <br />tire reach ranged from 4 to 11 cfs. Since additional errors <br />may have been introduced in the measurement of Williams Fork <br />(see Table 4-1, Footnote S), total losses from Station 1 to the <br />last station above [dilliams Fork may be more representotive of <br />the entire reach. These ranged from 10 to 14 cfs and averaged <br />12 cfs, or about 5 percent of the average Station 1 flora. <br />It cannot be conclusively stated, but it is possible <br />that a small gain in flow was occurring between Stations 2A' and <br />2B. The data from the three complete days of measurements (29 <br />to 31 August) have been composited and are graphically displayed <br />in Figure 4-1. Again of almost two cfs is apparent bet~oeen <br />Stations 2A and 2S on this graph. This gain, and even the four <br />cfs gain between these stations on 30 August are within the two <br />percent accuracy limits of the measurements and therefore cannot <br />be called conclusive. <br /> <br />4-1 <br />