My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP40881
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP40881
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:42:48 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 8:52:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984062
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
8/11/1998
Doc Name
1997 AHR REVIEW
From
JANET BINNS
To
KENT GORHAM
Annual Report Year
1997
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY REPORT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />Stream gaging can only be accomplished when stream flows are sufficiently low <br />enough for a technician to safely negotiate the current of a stream. These <br />conditions generally exist at this operation from June through September, which is <br />recognized as irrigation and/or low flow season. Unfortunately, a reliable <br />stage/discharge curve can be generated and validated only within the range of the <br />flows actually measured. Flows above or below the rated range of the stream are <br />merely forecasts, based upon an extension of that curve through the rated range. <br />The rated range of site 29 is approximately 0.5 cfs to 7.0 cfs. <br />At a stable gaging site it may be desirable to collect data over a long period of <br />time and to periodically regenerate astage/discharge curve, using all available <br />data. At a less stable gaging site it may be necessary to limit the time frame for <br />the collection of data used to generate astage/discharge curve in order to avoid <br />distortion. <br />I have also included, herein, a sheet entitled `COMPARISON OF FLOWS -Site <br />900 + Site 700 vs. Site 29'. This sheet is a compilation of flows reported for these <br />sites in the 1997 AHR, flows for site 29 based upon astage/discharge curve <br />generated over a more limited (recent) time frame, a comparison of these flows, a <br />record of the times at which measurements were recorded at site 29, and a record <br />of precipitation events that may have affected measurements. <br />Considering all of the above, the `COMPARISON OF FLOWS -Site 900 + Site <br />700 vs. Site 29' reflects an acceptable comparison of flows during rated flow <br />conditions. <br />If you have any questions, or require any additional information, please contact me a <br />(970) 870-2730. <br />Sincerely, <br />Joe Shoemaker <br />Environmental Specialist <br />Enclosures <br />Cc: File C-84-062 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.