Laserfiche WebLink
<br />!'l1".';P~ Q <br />..,.. "..1 <br /> <br />RESULTS OF MODEL APPLICATION <br /> <br />Table 2. Six month model _nits. <br /> May to October Results <br /> Maximum Average SupW'ssion Residual Flow <br />No. Reservoir Elev. Depth Depth Idealized Final(C) Heat (OC) Index CIA <br />I Bear Lake 5925 225 224 28.8 19.0 2.7 .01 .66 <br />2 Deer Creek 5420 137 123 19.0 19.5 0.1 .29 1.03 <br />3 Flaming Gorge 6000 439 421 26.8 22.7 1.0 .05 0.85 <br />4 Hyrum 4885 72 61 14.4 19.6 -1.7 .79 1.40 <br />6 Lake Powell 3700 561 480 43.3 33.9 3.0 .04 .78 <br />10 Pineview 4900 82 70 16.9 14.7 -0.3 .21 .87 <br />II Porcupine 5800 141 105 19.0 24.8 -1.0 .71 1.30 <br />12 Scofield 7580 45 37 4.8 4.6 -.1 .09 .96 <br />13 Sevier Bridge SOl5 72 62 6.0 4.S I.I .20 .75 <br />14 Starvation 5800 147 122 10.3 11.2 -1.0 .19 1.09 <br /> Average 18.9 17.5 0.4 .26a 0.97 <br /> .35b <br /> aAverageoraU reservoirs. <br /> b Average without high carryover reservoirs (1.3. and 6) <br /> <br />Six Month Model <br /> <br />The combination of data available from <br />existing publications and that measured during <br />this project allowed application of the detailed <br />model to 10 Utah reservoirs. All of the various <br />parameters involved are shown in the program <br />output in Appendix H, some of which are <br />summarized in Table 2. <br /> <br />The results of the seasonal model displayed in <br />Table 2 were used as a basis for the regression <br />analysis which will be discussed later. <br /> <br />Flow Index <br /> <br />The flow index shown in Table 2 is computed <br />from the monthly outflow/storage ratios (VFRAC). <br />Rather than using a straight average, the seasonal <br /> <br />index (FLOW) is computed by weighting these <br />ratios according to monthly evaporation factors. <br />This results in a better indicator of the impact of <br />outflow on seasonal suppression. The effect of a <br />high flow index is to increase suppression because <br />of the increase in heat removed from the reservoir. <br />This can be seen by the suppression determined for <br />Hyrum and Porcupine Reservoirs. The values are <br />higher than expected for reservoirs of that depth. <br /> <br />Table 2 reveals some interesting relationships. <br />For example. a comparison of idealized and final <br />suppression rates shows that their ratio varies from <br />.66 to 1.33 and averages 0.97. This indicates that <br />actual May to October suppression averages only 3 <br />percent less than the idealized calculation which <br />ignores the negative effect of suppression heat and <br />the positive outlet now effect. The effect of outlet <br />heat is actually greater than the suppression heat <br /> <br />33 <br />