Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />~ <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />the reservoir release records for the period of 1975- V. ^0~ <br />~' '6. 'IV" <br />1984, Method B a 1 so inc 1 udes the adj ustmen t to tran5s /~ ~~ I alo <br />,..----.--------------------__________________ ~ (JV <1, "" <br /> <br />mountain diversions for the 7,6% transit loss, The ~ <br />------ .~------ <br />differences in the adjusted Canon City gaged flows for <br /> <br />Method A and Method B are shown below by comparing the <br /> <br />averages for the 1975 to 1984 period in thousands of <br /> <br />acre-feet per year: <br /> <br />1i2Y~::M!!!:~ <br /> <br />!l~!:,,-::QQ1,,- <br /> <br />!l!!!!!!!!!. <br /> <br />Method A <br /> <br />120,3 <br /> <br />366,6 <br /> <br />486,9 <br /> <br />Method B <br /> <br />101,1 <br /> <br />402,0 <br /> <br />503,1 <br /> <br />The average adjusted flow for Method A is less than for <br /> <br />Method B because the storage of transmountain diversions <br /> <br />which is not accounted for in Method A has increased over <br /> <br />the ten year period, <br /> <br />The transmountain adjustments for <br /> <br />Method B are therefore less than for Method A, The <br /> <br />difference between the two methods over a long period of <br /> <br />record would be minimal because the change in storage <br /> <br />would become insignificant averaged over many years. The <br /> <br />restilts of the mass diagram analysis are not significant- <br /> <br />ly affected by the difference in the two methods of ad- <br /> <br />justment to the Canon City gaged flow, and the conclu- <br /> <br />sions derived in this report will not change depending on <br /> <br />which method is adopted. <br />