Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Table 2.-Potential snow water accumulation in acre-feet . <br />(Based on September-April precipitation received at the site) <br /> Winter Recharge/ <br /> precipitation Recharge Control control plot <br />Winter (40-acre plot) plot' plot' difference <br />1990-91 8.6 17.2 14.6 2,6 <br />1991-92 9,7 19.4 16,5 2,9 <br />1992-93 13.6 27,2 23,1 4.1 <br />1993-94 16,2 32.4 27.5 4,9 <br />1994-95 11,8 23,6 20,1 3.5 <br />1995-96 15,7 31.4 26.7 4,7 <br />Averages 12,6 25.2 21.4 3.8 <br />Average 0.32 0.63 0,54 0,11 <br />per acre <br />, Based on 200 percent of precipitation, <br />, Based on 170 percent of precipitation. <br /> <br />Based on precipitation and snow survey data, the snow barriers provided an average of <br />about 0,1 foot per acre more water on the recharge plot than at the control plot. If the effects . <br />of snow capture were extrapolated to all 19,200 acres of the upgradient recharge zone for <br />the Turner-Hogeland Aquifer and compared to long-term September through April <br />precipitation, the maximum amount of new water that could be available would be about <br />1,900 acre-feet, which is about 20 percent of the water pumped in 1985 for irrigation. <br />However, the actual amount of available water would be lessened by evaporation during <br />melting (minor amount), runoff that left the recharge zone (possibly a major amount), soil <br />storage (approximately constant), and the probability that not all of the land within the <br />recharge zone could be managed to enhance snow capture. <br /> <br />Water Quality Analysis and Results <br /> <br />The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assisted with developing a project-specific <br />Water Quality Monitoring and Quality Assurance Plan, projected the water quality impacts <br />prior to project construction, and evaluated the water quality impacts in yearly reports to <br />Congress, <br /> <br />All cooperating agencies reviewed and approved the MBMG's Plan of Development. The <br />plan provided a water quality monitoring program which detailed when, where, and how <br />samples were to be collected, what analysis was required, and the specific analytical <br />method to be performed on the samples, The recharge demonstration site and the control <br />site each had four perimeter and five interior monitoring sites. The entire test site has one . <br />upgradient and one downgradient well. Field and laboratory quality assurance and quality ,. <br />control procedures were defined in the Revised Plan of Development. In accordance with <br /> <br />4 <br />