My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07897
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07897
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:29:20 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:40:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.126.D
Description
San Miguel Project
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
4
Date
12/20/1988
Title
Flow Measurement and Operating Records Data Memorandum
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
<br />'00 <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />Summarizing the records kept for the Ulylands system, data for reservoir inflows, outflows, and <br />o stage were received covering the period from May 12 to August 8. The automatic operation of <br />the bifurcation structure and remoteness of its location apparently contributed to infrequent <br />visits to that site and a general lack of observations there. Through the first week of June, <br />observations were made at the reservoir three to four times a week. Subsequently, <br />observations were made at approximately one to two week intervals. The maximum observed <br />inflow was approximately 46 cfs on May 15. The estimated maximum release was 35 cfs also <br />on May 15. The reservoir was full (700 acre-foot capacity) with periods of spill from May 12 to <br />May 21. <br /> <br />Because gaged inflows and outflows were recorded at both Lone Cone and Gurley Reservoirs, <br />water balance calculations were performed at both sites to check agreement with observed <br />changes in storage. This is only an approximate check since the observed inflows and outflows <br />were instantaneous values, not daily average values. For outflows, the observed values were <br />probably reasonably good approximations of average values at both reservoirs. For the Gurley <br />inflows, the typical time of observation (about 8:00 a.m.) corresponds to one of the periods in <br />the diurnal flow fluctuation cycle when the observed flow would be approximately equal to the <br />mean daily flow. Not enough is known about flow fluctuations in the Lone Cone intake system <br />to draw any conclusions about the goodness of the approximation for those inflows. Plots of <br />observed storage versus calculated storage are shown in Figures 2 and 3 for Gurley and Lone <br />Cone Reservoirs, respectively. <br /> <br />Examination of the plots for Gurley Reservoir shows a progressive departure of the calculated <br />storage line from the observed storage line, with calculated storage exceeding the observed <br />storage. When average net monthly evaporative rates and average monthly reservoir surface <br />areas were used to account for evaporation, the cumulative departure at the end of the season <br />was accounted for within 5 percent. <br /> <br />Examination of the plot for Lone Cone Reservoir shows a fairly good agreement between the <br />calculated and observed storage line with the observed storage progressively exceeding the <br />calculated values from mid-June to the end of the season. The use of instantaneous rather <br />than average inflow values is likely responsible for a portion of this departure. A significant <br />portion of this departure can be explained by the diversion of Gurley Ditch flows into Lone Cone <br />Ditch below the Lone Cone inflow gaging station commencing in mid-July. <br /> <br />Overall, the agreement between calculated and observed storages at Lone Cone and Gurley <br />Reservoirs was very good throughout the 1988 season. This lends substantial credence to the <br />general accuracy of the inflow and outflow rating relations and stage-storage data developed at <br />these locations. This also illustrates the minimal record keeping effort required to attain fairly <br />accurate water budget accounting. <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.