My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CRDSS_Task2-09-10_OtherUsesCULosses_UpperColoBasin
CWCB
>
Decision Support Systems
>
DayForward
>
CRDSS_Task2-09-10_OtherUsesCULosses_UpperColoBasin
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/25/2011 10:18:46 AM
Creation date
5/29/2008 1:44:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Decision Support Systems
Title
CRDSS Task 2.09-10 - Consumptive Use Model - Non-Irrigation (Other Uses) Consumptive Uses and Losses in the Upper Colorado River Basin
Description
This task memorandum formalizes the computation of non-irrigation categories such as livestock, stockpond, municipal, thermal electric, mineral resource, export, fish and wildlife, and recreation categories for the CRDSS consumptive use (CU) in the Upper Colorado River Basin for calendar years 1985 to 1990.
Decision Support - Doc Type
Task Memorandum
Date
1/21/1997
DSS Category
Consumptive Use
DSS
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Contract/PO #
C153658, C153727, C153752
Grant Type
Non-Reimbursable
Bill Number
SB92-87, HB93-1273, SB94-029, HB95-1155, SB96-153, HB97-008
Prepared By
Riverside Technology inc.
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The (storage) tank capacity for each stockpond was obtained from a Dbase file provided by the <br />State Engineer?s Office. Individual stockpond tank capacities were summed into two aggregates <br />(stockponds located above 7750 ft. and stockponds be low 7750 ft in elevation). This elevation is <br />chosen because, all stockponds located above 7750 ft . elevation use a fullness factor equal to 0.87, <br />while the rest use a f actor of 0.75 (USBR, 1991). <br />Tank capacity is converted to its equivalent surface area for both aggregates by using the following <br />expression: <br />= <br />0 . 9 <br />SAC 01945 . <br />where SA = equivalent surface area (acres), and C = aggregate tank capacity (acre-ft). The above <br />equation is obtained from Arnold and Williams (1985). Table 4 shows the aggregate stockpond <br />capacity and surface area in each sub-basin. <br />Climate data used to determine evaporation ar e retrieved from monthly weather files using CRDSS <br />weather stations and weights. The advantage of the aggregation is that instead of assigning a <br />weather station weight for each separate stockpond, the assignment can be made for each sub-basin <br />consistent with what is being done for the irriga tion category. Unfortunately, complete evaporation <br />data are rarely available from weather stations and pan evaporation data are difficult to obtain <br />during the winter. Evaporation is then indirectly obtained from the monthly estimates of mean <br />temperature by a formula proposed by Bl aney (1960) when data are unavailable: <br />= <br />ektp 07100 ./ <br />where t = mean monthly temperature (deg F), p = percentage monthly daylight hours, k = Blaney <br />monthly coefficients. Table 5 shows the summary of the stockpond evaporation values as calculated <br />with the CRDSS CU Model. <br />2.3 Reservoir <br />Reservoir surface area and evaporation are reported by the United States Geological Survey for <br />1990 by Hydrologic Unit, but not for 1985. Values reported for surface area and evaporation by the <br />USGS are shown in Table 6, these data can be obtained from the USGS wo rld wide web page at <br />http://h2o.er.usgs.gov/public/watuse. The program has the option of calculating evaporation based <br />on weather data if the surface areas of the reservoirs are provided. <br />2.4 Municipal <br />Population data were obtained from the 1980 censu s (Bureau of the Census, 1981) and 1990 census <br />(Bureau of the Census, 1991). Values for the y ears 1985-1989 were obtained by linear interpolation <br />for county and municipality populations. The total municipal population located in the basin (Table <br />7) was subtracted from the basin-wide population to obtain a rural population for each county. The <br />percentage of each county in the basin (determi ned by GIS) was multiplied by the rural population <br />and summed to achieve a basin-wide rural population for each year (Table 8). <br />The per capita gross usage for each type of us e (urban, rural, commercial and public) can be <br />provided by the user (and thus, allowed to vary ) for each sub-basin, also a different consumptive <br />use ratio can be used for urban and rural consumptive use. The values used for this task memo were <br />obtained from USBR, 1991, as shown in Table 9. <br />2 <br />01.21.97 2.09-10 IDS/CSU <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.