Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i ~."'R`~c~C9 <br />~~ • 4.0 RESULTS <br />i <br />J 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 />1 <br />day a significant loss was measured. This loss was pinpointed <br />on the final day to the 800 foot stretch betcaeen Stations 3A <br />a and 4. Discharge data and flow 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 LO 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 5), total losses from Station 1 to the <br />•~last station above Williams Fork may be more representative 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 flow. <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 beett composited and are graphically displayed <br />~ in Figure 4-1. Again of almost two cfs is apparent between <br />Stations 2A and 2B 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 /> <br /> <br />