WSP07479 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ofll1?;) e Results Summary Based on snow survey data collected just before melting occurred, the recharge plot accumulated an average of 23 percent more water than did the control plot during the winters of 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1995-96, Table 1 summarizes the amount of precipitation and snow accumulation for each winter of operation and years when groundwater responded to snowmelt. Table 1 ,-Precipitation. soil moisture, and snow water content summary Recharge Control Recharge/ September- plot-snow plot-snow control April water water plot Relative water precipitation content content difference level rise in Winter (inches) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (percent) wells? 1990-91 '2,59 NM2 NM NC3 None 1991-92 2.91 NM NM NC None 1992-93 4,09 1,51 1.05 44 Small 1993-94 4,86 6.25 4,89 28 Large . 1994-95 3,53 NM NM NC None 1 995-96 4.70 8.53 8.71 -2 Large Averages 4,02 5.43 4.88 23 , Incomplete data. 2 Not measured. 3 Not calculated, Snow survey data collected just before snowmelt and compared to the amount of precipitation measured at the site showed that the recharge and control plots accumulated more water than was measured in onsite precipitation gauges, The recharge plot collected about 200 percent of precipitation and the control plot about 170 percent, The average difference between the plots was about 36 percent. The excess water probably came from snow that otherwise would have evaporated during drifting, Differences in potential snow water accumulation between the recharge and control plots for all years of project operation were estimated using ratios between measured pre- cipitation and the amount of snow water that had actually accumulated during the winters of 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1995-96. Table 2 shows the estimated amounts of water that accumulated as snow each year based on these ratios of 200 percent of precipitation for the recharge plot and 170 percent for the control plot. I 3