Laserfiche WebLink
F 'f.:~'~'3~~~7 <br />WFPOYATIOM <br />Vxao = VSO (230 cfs)'° _ ,66 fps (1.19) = 0.8 fps <br /> <br />The estimate based on the field observations is somewhat lower <br />(0.5 fps), but it is reasonably close. Therefore, using 0.8 fps <br />average velocity: <br />4.6 mi (5280 ft/mi) --g hours time of travel. <br />ft/sec (3600 sec/hr <br />- Eight hours is approximately the elapsed time betcueen the first <br />and last measurements made each day. This means that measurements <br />'~, were being made on approximately the same water as it moved down- <br />stream. This is desirable because it helps minimize channel stor- <br />age changes due to varying upstream stages. <br />It is not possible to determine precisely the channel <br />~ storage changes from the available data. However, it can be <br />,i <br />~l stated that changes, if any, are small. Overnight flow prior <br />'+ to each day's measurement was quite steady as noted above. Some <br />n drop in stage did occur during each day, but it is not certain <br />that this was due to upstream changes. Specifically, drop in <br />! stage was at least partly, and possibly primarily, attributable <br />to evapotranspirative losses. This would have been occurring <br />1 at a fairly uniform rate over the entire river and not just up- <br />stream. Evapotranspiration has been handled separately in this <br />~ report. <br />If stage changes at Station 1 were entirely due to up- <br />stream conditions, it would be possible to estimate channel <br />storage changes from the gage height record. Since the time of <br />travel over the 4.6 mile reach was approximately eight hours, <br />one method of estimating could be to use gage heights at four <br />hours either side of the start of discharge measurement. For <br />example, on 29 August: <br />.~ <br />4-9 <br />