SEPA
United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S Kerr Environmental Research EPA
Laboratory Mnruh 1
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
Application of
Continuous
Watershed
Modelling to
Feedlot Runoff
Management and
Control
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-065
March 1979
APPLICATION OF CONTINUOUS WATERSHED MODELLING
TO FEEDLOT RUNOFF MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
by
Jerome J. Zovne
James K. Koelliker
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Grant No. R803797-01-0
Project Officer
Lynn R. Shuyler
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents neces-
sarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.
An important part of the agency's effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques and new
technologies through which optimum use of the nation's land and water
resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare
of the American people can be minimized.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search
through a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to:
(a) investigate the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants
in groundwater; (b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating waste-
waters with soil and other natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate
pollution control technologies for irrigation return flows, (d) develop
and demonstrate pollution control technologies for animal production
wastes; (e) develop and demonstrate technologies to prevent, control
or abate pollution from the petroleum refining and petrochemical in-
dustries, and (f) develop and demonstrate technologies to manage pol-
lution resulting from combinations of industrial wastewaters or indus-
trial/municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the EPA
is to meet the requirements of environmental laws that it establish
and enforce pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost
effective and provide adequate protection for the American people.
*
William C. Galegar, Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
PREFACE
The problem of controlling the natural runoff pollution resulting from
feedlot operations has received a great deal of attention in the past ten
years. As a result of numerous investigations into the volumes and strength
of pollutants for the major livestock producing areas of the country, the
feedlot industry was identified as a specific category for regulation under
the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The Act called for the establish-
ment of effluent guidelines and standards of performance for each category.
Due to the fact that the standard of performance adopted was a "no
discharge" technology except for rare occurrences of excess precipitation,
evaluation or establishment of the standards of performance must consider the
climatic conditions at the particular site of a feedlot. "No discharge"
suggests only two disposal alternatives, either land application or evapora-
tion of trapped runoff, both of which are dependent upon the same climatic
factors. "No discharge" also implies that the feedlot runoff must be managed
over the continuum. A continuous watershed model can evaluate at once the
climatic situation of a particular site, the unique situation of the open
feedlot, the various management alternatives available to control feedlot
runoff, and the physical characteristics of the feedlot site. It potentially
provides an effective tool to evaluate performance of existing feedlots or
aid in the design of new facilities. Modelling will also aid in evaluation
of residuals generation for particular feedlots.
The model, Feedlot Runoff Model Kansas State University (FROMKSU), has
been developed using data and physical constants applicable to 10 stations in
Kansas and to 18 other stations scattered throughout the United States.
Extension of its use to conditions markedly different from these stations
should be done with great caution. A thorough examination of the physical
parameters must be made to insure compatibility to the particular location.
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
A continuous simulation, digital computer, hydrologic model of feedlot
runoff generation and disposal has been developed at Kansas State University.
The purpose of the model is to establish guidelines and design parameters for
feedlot runoff control facilities which will meet the requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The model contin-
uously monitors the water budget of a feedlot-storage pond-irrigation disposal
area control system using historic rainfall and temperature data. It uses
only readily available climate, soil, and crop data so that it can be applied
to all major livestock producing areas of the United States. The model is ex-
pected to be useful in evaluating applications for "permits" to discharge and
for 208 planning agencies in "Best Management Practices" for feedlots. A user
manual is included with program printout, input data requirements, and an
example of a 25-year simulation for Belleville, Kansas.
A report on the state-of-the-art of modelling the quality of feedlot run-
off is also presented. This report resulted from a meeting of specialists to
pool resources on water quality modelling from their respective specialty
areas.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. R803797-01-0
by Kansas State University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period June 15, 1975 to September
14, 1977, and the work was completed September 14, 1977.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Preface iv
Abstract v
Figures viii
Tables ix
Acknowledgement x
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 2
3. Recommendations 3
4. The Model 4
Potential evapotranspiration 4
Water movement in the disposal area 13
Soil evaporation 13
Transpiration 15
Surface runoff, interception and infiltration . . 15
Percolation and redistribution 18
Snow on the disposal area 18
Criteria for disposal on the area 19
The storage facility 21
5. Testing Procedure 23
6. Results and Discussion 26
Irrigation disposal 26
Evaporation 29
Method for sizing components 29
Examples 36
Runoff control with irrigation disposal 36
Runoff control by evaporation . 37
References 38
Appendices
A. FROMKSU User's Manual 42
Input requirements 42
Example 50
Output analysis 50
References 53
B. Program Printouts 55
1. FROMKSU source code 56
2. Example of 25-year simulation of irrigation
disposal at Belleville, Kansas 76
3. Example of 25-year simulation of evaporation
disposal at Belleville, Kansas 104
C. Regression Analyses 132
D. State-of-the-Art of Modelling Feedlot Runoff Quality ... 135
E. List of Symbols and Conversion Table 154
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Process schematic for FROMKSU 5
2 The general algorithm for model FROMKSU 6
3 Graphical determination of brunt coefficients (c and d). . . 11
4 Configuration of storage facility 21
5 The 100 percent control volume as a function of the 25-year
storm 28
6 The 100 percent control volume as a function of moisture
deficit 30
7 The 100 percent control surface area for evaporation systems 31
8 Graphical determination of the PRC design factor 35
A-l Subroutine CROPCO flowchart 47
A-2 Comparison of crop growth stage coefficient curves for corn. 49
A-3 Card images of input deck for FROMKSU 51
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Pag
1 Mid-Monthly Intensity of Solar Radiation on a
Horizontal Surface in mm of Water Evaporated Per. ... 9
2 List of c and d Coefficients Used in Penman Combination
Equation 12
3 Soil Moisture Properties Used in the Model 14
4 Irrigation Design Class Descriptions for Soils in
the Disposal Area 16
5 SCS Runoff Curve Numbers for Condition II 17
6 Climatological Variable and Standard Run Results
for Irrigation and Evaporation Disposal 25
7 Comparison of Critical Event (P25)a to 100 and 96 Percent
Control Pond Volumes 27
8 Design Factor S for Soils in Disposal Area 33
9 Design Factor C for Crop on Disposal Area 33
10 Design Factor D for Ratio of Disposal Area to Feedlot
Area 33
11 Design Factor R for Disposal Rate Per Day Over Disposal
Area 34
12 Design Factor H for Maximum Depth of Retention Pond ... 34
13 Design Factor M for Irrigation Management 34
14 Design Factor PRC for Percentage of Feedlot Runoff
Controlled 36
A-l List of Input Data 42
A-2 Sample Calculation No. 1 46
A-3 Comparison of K Coefficients 48
C-l Glossary of Climatological Variables Used in Regression
Analyses 132
C-2 List of Stepwise Multiple Regressions 134
D-l Cattle Feedlot Runoff Characteristics 141
D-2 Quality of Runoff from Steep Non-Paved Cattle Feedlots. . 142
E-3 Conversion of Units 156
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Many people contributed to the formulation of this project and their help
was sincerely appreciated. Messrs. Ted Bean, John Anschutz, Howard Neibling
and Michael Peterson developed the various essential components of model.
Several other graduate research assistants and temporary employees greatly
aided us with inputs for the model and computer operations.
The cooperation of Dr. J. Ronald Miner and Dr. Robert Wensink, Oregon
State University, is especially recognized. Their collaboration on this
project has added an additional dimension to the usability of this model.
x
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments (FWPCA) of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) in October of 1972. The Act re-
quired the establishment of effluent guidelines for various categories of
polluters; one of which was the feedlot industry.
Under the FWPCA, the EPA was charged to define and require the application
of best practicable control technology (BPT) currently available to all
existing facilities by July 1, 1977. The application of best available tech-
nology (BAT) economically achievable was required for all new and existing
facilities by July, 1983. The effluent guidelines (8) published on February
14, 1974, in essence state "no discharge" except in the case of an extreme
rainfall event. For the application of BPT, this event is the 10-year, 24-
hour storm, while for application of BAT it is the 25-year, 24-hour (P25)
storm.
The regulations may be interpreted to imply that no discharge is allowed
except from a P25 storm or larger for the BAT. Since the only practical means
of disposing of accumulated waste is to apply it to the land, the inference is
that the feedlot operator will always be able to empty his storage pond prior
to any rainfall. He would therefore need pumping capacity sufficient to drain
a pond in at least 24 hours and enough land having a sufficient soil moisture
deficit to receive all of the excess waste water. While it may be possible to
provide enough pumping capacity to drain the pond rapidly, the operator cannot
dispose when soil moisture levels are high. As a result, chronic wet weather
periods are much more frequently the cause of overflows than the single
extreme rainfall event.
In addition, the regulations of March 18, 1976 (35), subject feedlots to
a case-by-case designation for evaluation under the national permit program
(24,25,28,34). This places a heavy burden on regulators who have to evaluate
these facilities. A simple continuous watershed model originally developed by
Koelliker (16) for evaluation of long-term performance of runoff control
facilities in Kansas and later used in other states has demonstrated useful-
ness as a design evaluation tool on the state level. Accordingly, a more
general model has been developed at Kansas State University, which can
appraise various management schemes of land disposal and evaporation facili-
ties at any location throughout the country, as reported by Zovne (42). The
model is intended to be an aid to designers as well as enforcement agencies.
In addition, it will enable 208 planning agencies to determine "Best Manage-
ment Practices" for the feedlot category for the whole state or for a parti-
cular designated area (27).
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
A continuous soil moisture accounting model has been developed to simu-
late the operation of a feedlot runoff control system. The model operates
using readily available daily temperature and precipitation data. It can
evaluate the performance of any particular open, unsurfaced feedlot runoff
storage and disposal system at any location in the United States.
The model is intended for use by the various EPA regions in evaluating
feedlot control systems in the national "permit" program. The model allows
the investigator to determine the required facilities for any level of control
which is determined to be the BAT in an area. This evaluation would generally
be based upon the percent of wastewater volume controlled over a period of
time.
A design technique is also presented which allows a rapid determination
of requirements in the absence of the computer program or appropriate data.
The accuracy of this approach is limited, and in no case should the tables or
charts be extrapolated beyond the range of data used to generate the factors.
In general, it was found that so-called "chronic" weather conditions
dominated the storage required for 100 percent control of runoff except in
arid to semiarid climates. The pond storage for 100 percent control was
generally 1.5 to 3 times the storage required to impound the P25 event in
subhumid climates. With ponds of this size an isolated P25 event could not
cause an overflow unless it was preceded by "chronic" wet conditions producing
antecedent accumulations in the pond.
The percentage of volume controlled has a substantial effect upon pond
size. If the performance standard were to be established at 98 percent control
of feedlot runoff, half of the 28 stations tested would still need pond storage
in excess of that required to impound the P25 event. If 95 percent control
were allowed, the required pond size would be approximately 35 percent of the
100 percent control volume.
A procedure for sizing evaporation ponds is also presented. Because
evaporation is dependent upon a moisture deficit; that is, a ratio of mean
annual precipitation to mean annual evaporation (PREVAP) less than one, this
method of disposal is not likely to be utilized in subhumid to humid climates.
Also, the nature of the quality of evaporation ponds may preclude any alter-
nate standard of control other than 100 percent.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Feedlot Runoff Model - Kansas State University (FROMKSU) is a tool which
can be applied to evaluate feedlot runoff control systems throughout the
country. It is recommended, however, that its application be restricted to
investigators who have some hydrologic training and who are conversant in
irrigation fundamentals. Key assumptions are disposal rates, soil types, and
crop coefficients, all of which require some subjective reasoning and a feel
for the situation. In a sense, an investigator should already have a good
conceptual model of relationships before using FROMKSU. The computer model
then confirms or casts doubt upon the conceptual model and fills in the de-
tails. As with any hydrologic model, the model must be adjusted so that long
term average rates of interception, evapotranspiration, free evaporation,
direct runoff and deep percolation are compatible with what an experienced
investigator expects them to be.
Similarly, the simplified design procedure presented herein is not meant
to be a substitute for the computer evaluation of a given site. It is meant
instead to give general guidelines for various climatic regions or a "ball-
park" estimate for a particular site in the absence of computer capability.
The analysis presented herein defines the heretofore undefined term
"chronic event." A tool has been developed which can evaluate the performance
of any specific feedlot disposal system in the U.S. with regard to both P25
and chronic events. The computer model can be used to design a pond-land
disposal system at any level of control desired. If P25 were to continue to
be the sole criterion, the approximate average level of control would be 97
percent exclusive of humid areas in the Pacific Northwest and east of the
Mississippi River. It would therefore appear advisable to evaluate perfor-
mance based upon two criteria; the P25 event and the percentage of runoff
controlled. The level of runoff percentage controlled depends upon the cost
of providing the facilities in a highly competitive industry versus cost of
environmental damage resulting from overflows. The results presented herein
should provide much needed base data for the more accurate consideration of
these competing costs.
-------
SECTION 4
THE MODEL
Because it is a continuous model, the impact of chronic wet weather
events can be evaluated in relation to the BPT or BAT requirements. The pro-
cess as shown in Figure 1 consists of three components. The first component
is a model to generate runoff from the feedlot surface. The second is a
wastewater (runoff) storage facility model which accounts for pond level fluc-
tuations in response to feedlot runoff inputs, evaporation, and irrigation
disposal outputs. The third is a soil-moisture accounting model which enables
the monitoring of conditions and the testing of disposal alternatives in an
irrigation disposal area. These components are necessary for a complete
examination of the interaction between pond volume requirements and irrigation
management alternatives.
In synthesizing the model emphasis was placed upon selection of physi-
cally meaningful parameters while attempting to minimize inputs required. The
goal was a model in which the constants and coefficients in any function could
be selected from existing data for any geographic and climatic province in the
U.S. The general algorithm of the model is shown in Figure 2. The sequence
of operations is an attempt to model the actual stream of events following a
rainfall on the feedlot.
POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
In a recent study (3) fifteen potential evapotranspiration methods were
tested on four locations in Wyoming, Colorado, and Nevada. The Penman Com-
bination method was ranked in the top five methods for estimating evapotrans-
piration. The Penman method produced reasonable results when calibrated for
Lake Hefner, Oklahoma (17), Kansas (43), Idaho and California (12). The
particular advantage of the equation is that it permits an estimate of natural
evaporation from any surface, whether it be water, bare soil, or a vegetated
area. The original development is described by Penman (26) and an adaptation
of the method applied to irrigation scheduling is described by Jensen (12).
The method is a combination of the energy budget and mass transfer
methods taking the form
PET = 2fA_ (Rn - G) + ^ (EA) (1)
where PET = the potential evapotranspiration, G = soil heat flux, Rn = daily
heat budget at the surface, A = slope of the saturation vapor pressure-temp-
erature curve, y = the psychrometric constant, and EA = a function of wind
speed and humidity.
-------
RAIN OR SNOW
SURFACE EVAR
RUNOFF
NO INFILTRATION
FEEDLOT
SURFACE
PRECIPITATION
il
DISPOSAL
EVAP.
1
ET ET OR
4 4 SOIL
f^ EVAR
DISCHARGE
NO INFILTRATION
RAIN OR SNOW
INTERCEPTION & SNOW EVAP
INFILTRATION
RUNOFF
PERCOLATION
STORAGE
POND
DEEP PERCOLATION
DISPOSAL
AREA
Figure 1. Process schematic for FROMKSU.
-------
c
START
Read Soil
Crop Array
Lot, Pond &
Dlsp.Paray
*
Write
Yearly
Summa ry
/ Read /
/Mean Monthly
/ Data /
Radiation, % Sun-
shine, Relative
Hum. & Wind Travel
no
no
, lead Monthly'
Blocks of /_.
'Daily Data /
Precipitation,
Max. & Min.
Temp.
Compute Pot-)
ential ET,
Evap.& Bare
Soil Evap.
Update
Monthly
Acc't
yes
'Cold>
Enough
t
Evalua te
Snow Pack;
Snow
Melt
V o r S n oyf
'
Evaluate Soi.
loisture in
Disposal
Area
Evalua te
Volume
Disposed
Update
Pond
Volume
no/ of Xves
Month
Update
Daily Ace ' t
Calculate
Discharge
Volume
Evalua t e
Feedlot
Run'off
Compu te
Surface Evapl
From Pond
Figure 2. The general algorithm for FROMKSU model.
6
-------
The soil heat flux (G) is a result of rapid changes in air temperature.
During the summer months when day-to-day variations in temperature and radia-
tion are not great, soil heat flux is small and can be neglected. Evapo-
transpiration (ET) is inhibited during the winter months and the effect of
this term on ET is small. For these reasons, G is neglected in this model.
The terms (T~T—) and (T-T—) are mean air temperature weighting factors
having a sum equal to 1.0. As reported (43), they can be calculated by
0.039 (Ta)°'673 (2)
A + Y
"" A + Y
to avoid the inconvenience of data tables and interpolation routines.
The heat budget term is developed in Gray (9, pp. 3.5-3.19) as follows:
Rn = (1.0 - r) Rsi - Rb (4)
where Rsi is the total solar radiation incident to a water surface and
Rsi = RA(a 4- b x PSUNS) (5a)
Then,
Rn = (1 - r) RA (a + b x PSUNS) - Rb (6)
where r = the mean daily shortwave reflectance (albedo), RA =» the extra-
terrestrial solar radiation on a horizontal surface, PSUNS = the percentage of
possible sunshine, and a and b are geographical constants. Rb = actual
outgoing longwave radiation,
Rb =» Pe(0.98 - E)(0.1 + 0.9(PSUNS)) (7)
and,
Pe - o(ABST)4/58.1 (8)
where ABST = the absolute temperature, a = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant,
E = the emissivity. According to Brunt,
E =« c + dv^SA (9)
where ESA = the actual vapor pressure of the air, and
ESA =• ES x RHD (10)
where RHD = the mean relative humidity; and c and d are geographical con-
stants. According to Linsley (21, p. 35),
ES =• 33.9[(0.00738Ta + 0.8072)8 - 0.000019|l.8Ta + 48| + 0.001316] (11)
where ES = the saturation pressure of air at the mean daily air temperature,
and Ta » the mean daily air temperature.
The aerodynamic term in Eq. 1 is derived as follows:
EA = f(u)(ES - ESA) (12)
and
f(u) =• 0.26 (e + 0.01 WVD) (13)
-------
where f(u) is a function of wind speed and
WVD =• W(log 6.6/logZ) (14)
where WVD is the mean wind velocity at 2 meters above the ground, W - the
measured wind velocity, and Z = the height, feet, above the ground at which
the wind is measured.
The complete, calibrated Penman Combination equation for Belleville,
Kansas, is
PET = 0.039Ta°'673[(l-r)RA(a + b x PSUNS) - 1.974 x 10~9 (ABST)4(1.0 - c
0.673^
- d/ES x RHDMO.l + 0.9PSUNS)] + (1 - 0.39Ta">u/J)
x 0.26(e + 0.01WVD)(ES - ES x RHD) (15)
where a = 0.22, b » 0.54, c = 0.62, d =• 0.039 and e - 0.5.
An input value of r = 0.05 results in a potential equivalent to evapora-
tion from a free water surface. The reflectance coefficients for green crops
vary from 0.20 to 0.25 (9, p. 3.10). For this model, r = 0.23 is used to
calculate PET from the cropped disposal area while r = 0.20 is used to calcu-
late the potential evaporation rate from bare soil. Reflectance coefficients
for snow vary from 0.90 for a clean dry surface to 0.40 for a melting, aged
snow. A constant value of 0.70 is therefore used in the program for snow.
The remaining inputs to the Penman equation are solar radiation (RA),
relative humidity (RHD), wind travel (WVD), percent sunshine (PSUNS) and mean
daily temperature (Ta). Although the Penman equation was determined to be the
best available method for use in this model, it has the disadvantage of
requiring these daily inputs which are not readily available at all locations.
In order to reduce model input requirements, Anschutz (personal communication)
conducted a study to determine the effects of using mean monthly values of
mean daily humidity, wind travel, solar radiation and percent sunshine. These
means are readily available from all first order weather stations in the U.S.
Using a differential t-test daily PET's calculated with daily inputs tested on
a monthly basis were statistically different at the 95 percent confidence
level from daily PET's based on monthly averages for five out of twelve months
over a 10-year period. When the PET's were blocked and tested in five-day
intervals, there were only two out of twelve months in which the two methods
were statistically different at the 95 percent level. When the mean monthly
values were substituted for daily inputs to the Kansas Watershed Model (43),
no significant differences were noted in daily streamflows. Although these
tests are indicative rather than conclusive, they are sufficient evidence for
using monthly averages in this model. The increase in mobility and decrease
in input data more than compensate for a slight decrease in daily accuracy.
The monthly values of RA are dependent upon the latitude of the location
and can be interpolated directly from Table 1. The values of a and b adjust
RA for diffuse scattering, absorption, and atmospheric reflection losses of
solar radiation. Constant values of a = 0.22 and b - 0.54 (9;p.3.9) are used
for all locations. Although these coefficients appear to be somewhat depen-
dent upon location and time of year, data is extremely limited.
-------
TABLE 1. MID-MONTHLY INTENSITY OF SOLAR RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE IN mm OF WATER EVAPORATED
PER DAY (AFTER CRIPPLE)
Northern Hemisphere Southern Hemisphere
90° 80° 70° 60° 50° 40° 30° 20° 10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°
Jan 1.3 3.6 6.0 8.5 10.8 12.8 14.5 15.8 16.8 17.3 17.3 17.1 16.6 16.5 17.3 17.6
Feb 1.1 3.5 5.9 8.3 10.5 12.3 13.9 15.0 15.7 16.0 15.8 15.2 14.1 12.7 11.2 10.5 10.7
Mar. .. 1.8 4.3 6.8 9.1 11.0 12.7 13.9 14.8 15.2 15.1 14.6 13.6 12.2 10.5 8.4 6.1 3.6 1.9
Apr. 7.9 7.8 9.1 11.1 12.7 13.9 14.8 15.2 15.2 14.7 13.8 12.5 10.8 8.8 6.6 4.3 1.9 ..
May 14.9 14.6 13.6 14.6 15.4 15.9 16.0 15.7 15.0 13.9 12.4 10.7 8.7 6.4 4.1 1.9 0.1 ..
June 18.1 17.8 17.0 16.5 16.7 16.7 16.5 15.8 14.8 13.4 11.6 9.6 7.4 5.1 2.8 0.8
July 16.8 16.5 15.8 15.7 16.1 16.3 16.2 15.7 14.8 13.5 11.9 10.0 7.8 5.6 3.3 1.2
Aug. 11.2 10.6 11.4 12.7 13.9 14.8 15.3 15.3 15.0 14.2 13.0 11.5 9.6 7.5 5.2 2.9 0.8 ..
Sept. 2.6 4.0 6.8 8.5 10.5 12.2 13.5 14.4 14.9 14.9 14.4 13.5 12.1 10.5 8.5 6.2 3.8 1.3 ..
Oct. .. 0.2 2.4 4.7 7.1 9.3 11.3 12.9 14.1 15.0 15.3 15.3 14.8 13.8 12.5 10.7 8.8 7.1 7.0
Nov 0.1 1.9 4.3 6.7 9.1 11.2 13.1 14.6 15.7 16.4 16.7 16.5 16.0 15.2 14.5 15.0 15.3
Dec 0.9 3.0 5.5 7.9 10.3 12.4 14.3 15.8 16.9 17.6 17.8 17.8 17.5 18.1 18.9 19.3
*Computed from "Manual of Meteorology" by Napier Shaw, Vol. II, Comparative Meteorology, 2nd Edition,
Cambridge University Press, 1936, pp. 4 and 5.
Note: Values from the table by Shaw multiplied by 0.86 and divided by 50 give the radiation in mm
of water per day.
-------
Mean monthly values of PSUNS, RHD and WVD are taken from Climates of
the States (4). For stations other than those listed, values are interpolated
from nearby stations. RHD is the early morning value at 4:00, 5:00, or 6:00
a.m., depending upon data available for a particular location. The height
above ground at which wind velocity is measured varies from station-to-
station and most have changed elevation at least once in the period of record.
Therefore, Z = 30 feet* is assumed for all stations. It represents a reason-
ably average condition.
The coefficient e varies from 0.5 to 1.0. For short green grass Penman
(26) reported a value of 1.0. In the Lake Hefner (38) studies a value of 0.5
was reported for a water surface. Wright (41) used a value of 0.75 for a
well-watered alfalfa field in southern Idaho. Other discussions are in (3)
and (7). In the program e = 0.75 when calculating potential ET and 0.5 when
calculating lake evaporation.
The only daily climatic information that is required by the program is
precipitation and maximum and minimum air temperatures. Magnetic tapes with
this information are available from the National Climate Center, Asheville,
N.C. Temperatures are used in equations 2, 8, 11 and 15. In Eq. 11, ES is
computed separately for the maximum and minimum temperature. The two values
are averaged to obtain the average saturation vapor pressure. The average of
the maximum and minimum temperature is used in equations 2, 8, and 5.
The values of c and d in Eq. 15 are quite variable with location and
climate. Obtaining good values for a particular location can be very time
consuming. A procedure was developed whereby these values could be estimated
using Eq. 15, a long record of temperature for a particular station, and the
moisture deficit (MD). Moisture deficit is defined as the long-term average
annual lake evaporation minus the long-term average annual precipitation. In
order to select c and d values, Figure 3 was developed from an analysis of 21
stations scattered throughout the U.S. The data for these stations is given
in Table 2.
In Table 2, the computer calculated values of evaporation and moisture
deficit for the c and d values and the period of record are listed. The
estimated values of annual or seasonal May through October or April through
September evaporation from evaporation charts or (5) are also listed. These
were used for calibration. The c and d values were plotted against the
actual moisture deficit calculated by the program for the period of record in
Figure 3.
The moisture deficit for a location can be computed using charts or
figures provided by the U.S. Weather Bureau. An excellent discussion of the
use of various evaporation maps is given in (40;pp.80-88). For most of the
stations in Table 2, pan-evaporation was determined from nearby Class A Pan
stations (5). Annual precipitation is also best determined from (5), although
maps are readily available elsewhere.
*A conversion chart for SI units is included in Appendix E.
10
-------
0.9-
0.8-
0.7-
C 0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
0.05-
0.04-
0.03-
0.02-
Lake Hefner, OK
Lake Mead, NV
Boise, 10
-10
10 20 30 40
MOISTURE DEFICIT, in.
50
60
70
80
Figure 3. Graphical determination of brunt coefficients (c and d)
-------
TABLE 2. LIST OF c AND d COEFFICIENTS USED IN
PENMAN COMBINATION EQUATION
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Sacramento, CA
Dublin, GA
Urbana, IL
W. Lafayette, IN
Belleville, KS
Colby, KS
Ellsworth, KS
Garden City, KS
Hays, KS
Horton, KS
Independence, KS
Topeka, KS
Crookston, MN
Minneapolis, MN
Wooster, OH
Corvallis, OR
Pendleton, OR
Centerville, SD
Beeville, TX
Hereford, TX
Period
49-75
53-72
49-73
04-73
04-73
49-73
50-74
46-70
50-74
48-73
46-70
48-72
49-73
04-73
04-73
04-73
31-65
30-69
04-73
51-75
49-73
Lake
evap . *
in.
70.7**
56.0**
25.1
29.3
27.7
33.2
44.4
35.0
47.4
46.3
29.9
31.4
34.4
24.2
30.3
26.0
21.2
33.8
30.8
47.2**
40.1
Moisture
deficit1"
in.
64
39
-14
- 2
- 4
8
35
18
42
34
1
5
9
5
10
- 4
-13
31
10
17
47
t
c
0.69
0.69
0.50
0.58
0.56
0.62
0.79
0.60
0.80
0.78
0.60
0.59
0.66
0.60
0.67
0.57
0.57
0.64
0.65
0.60
0.83
df
0.030
0.034
0.038
0.040
0.041
0.039
0.035
0.033
0.034
0.035
0.040
0.039
0.041
0.038
0.039
0.042
0.042
0.035
0.035
0.034
0.033
Lake
evap . T
70.8**
56.8**
24.5
29.0
26.8
32.5
44.5
34.5
47.3
47.7
28.9
30.9
34.3
23.6
30.4
25.6
21.3
33.6
32.3
46.7**
40.5
*Average May-Oct. or April-Sept, value as calculated by Penman Combination
Equation using c and d values listed.
Value used to develop Fig. 3
rAverage May-Oct. or April-Sept, value as determined from Weather Bureau
Charts or Climatological Data (5).
**Annual values.
12
-------
The values of c and d can then be estimated from Figure 3, based upon an
estimate of moisture deficit for the location. In the computer program devel-
oped for this project, Eq. 15 is solved with e =• 0.5 and r = 0.05 for lake
evaporation. The average values of May-October or April-September evaporation
and the total annual lake evaporation are printed so that c and d can be
adjusted for actual conditions experienced during the simulation period. The
c and d values are then adjusted in repetitive runs as needed. An increase in
c of 0.01 results in a 1.0 + 0.25 in. increase in lake evaporation while an
increase in d of 0.001 results in an increase of 0.4 + 0.1 in.
WATER MOVEMENT WITHIN THE DISPOSAL AREA
The disposal area can be conceived as a soil-water reservoir which is
recharged by precipitation and irrigation waters and depleted by evapotrans-
piration. Most annual row crops and grasses develop their root zone in the
upper 4 ft. of soil. Since soil water is extracted through the plant roots,
most transpiration occurs from this level. Root extraction pattern studies by
Russell (30) and a consumptive use study by Manges (personal communication)
conducted in England and Kansas have shown that approximately 70 percent is
extracted from the upper 1 ft. of soil, with nearly all of the remaining 30
percent being taken from the next 3 ft. On this basis, the disposal area
soil-moisture model evaluates soil-water interactions above the 4 ft. level
with two layers which are referred to as upper and lower zones. Transpiration
is proportioned in the two zones according to root densities. Water which
moves vertically downward through both zones is accounted as percolation out
of the root zone.
Water is also transferred from the soil to the atmosphere by direct soil
evaporation. When soil lies fallow or annual row crops are in the early
growth stage providing little vegetative cover, the evapotranspiration is
mostly soil evaporation. As plant leaf surface areas increase through the
growth stage, direct soil evaporation decreases and plant transpiration
increases.
Soil Evaporation
Evaporation from soil generally occurs in two stages (14). First stage
evaporation occurs when the soil is sufficiently wet to readily transport
water to the surface. This is the constant rate stage in which evaporation
proceeds at the potential rate calculated for bare soil. When a threshold
amount, U, is reached, hydraulic properties of the soil begin to limit the
evaporation rate. According to Ritchie (29), second stage evaporation is
calculated by
Es - c't** - c'Ct-l)3* (16)
where Es is the stage 2 evaporation, c1 is a hydraulic coefficient of the
soil, and t is the time after stage 1 evaporation.
Field work done by Kanemasu (14) using these relations have supplemented
Ritchie's work, providing the values for U and c' shown in Table 3. Studies
conducted by Bond (2) lead to similar relations using cumulative evaporation
13
-------
TABLE 3. SOIL MOISTURE PROPERTIES USED IN THE MODEL
(1)
Irri-
gation
soil
class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(2)
scs
soil
group
D
D
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
(3)
Soil
profile
depth
ft
3.0
3.0
5.0
2.5
5.0
3.0
5.0
2.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
(4)
Available water
inches
Upper* Lower
zone zone
2.6
1.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.2
1.5
1.0
2.7
2.9
5.7
2.5
6.7
4.2
6.6
3.3
5.2
4.1
4.1
2.5
(5)
Field capacity
inches
Upper Lower
zone zone
4.6
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.5
2.3
1.7
9.4
9.4
14.2
7.0
13.9
9.1
13.7
6.8
9.2
7.0
7.0
4.3
(6)
Permanent
wilting point
inches
Upper Lower
zone zone
2.0
2.9
2.0
2.2
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
0.8
0.7
6.7
6.5
8.5
4.5
7.2
4.9
7.1
3.5
4.0
2.9
2.9
1.8
(7)
Soil moisture
at saturation
inches
Upper Lower
zone zone
5.8
6.2
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.2
4.8
4.8
11.8
11.5
16.3
8.2
15.8
10.4
15.4
7.7
13.9
13.2
13.2
12.9
(8)
Upper
limit ^
stage 2
e vapor.
U
in.
0.47
0.47
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.35
0.35
0.31
0.31
0.28
0.24
(9)
Empir-
ical
coeff .
in . day
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
*Upper zone thickness is 1 ft.
Lower zone thickness is 3 ft except where soil profile depth limitations occur.
-------
curves. The model treats both stage 1 and stage 2 evaporation in the same
manner as Ritchie and Kanemasu. The 12 soil classes in Table 3 apply to the
irrigation design class descriptions listed in Table 4 (15).
Evapo transp irat ion
The rate of consumptive use of a crop is dependent upon atmospheric,
plant, and soil factors (13). The atmospheric or climatic factors are incor-
porated in the computation of PET by the Penman method. The Blaney-Criddle
method (32) is widely accepted in accounting for plant factors. This method
is used to modify the potential rate by a plant consumptive use factor (k)
which is determined from experimental data for each crop. The method has
been applied to both dry land (42) and irrigated (12) crops.
Under wet conditions evapotranspiration will proceed at the maximum rate.
This relation continues until the soil-water deficit reaches a level which is
equivalent to 0.3 of the maximum available moisture 0 , according to Kanemasu
^ THo.x
(14). Available moisture, or capillary water as defined by Israelsen (11, p.
162), is the moisture content of the soil between field capacity and the
permanent wilting point. When the soil-water deficit falls below 0.3 0 »
Kanemasu modifies the potential rate by the simple linear relation
Ks = 6a/0.3 6 (17)
max
where 9a is the actual available soil moisture content. Ks = 1 when the soil
moisture is a above 0.3 9 and varies linearly from 1 to 0 between 0.3 6
max J max
and the permanent wilting point. The actual evapotranspiration (AET) is then
AET = PET x k x Ks (18)
A discussion of crop coefficients, k, can be found in Appendix A in the
section relating to the (CROPCO) subroutine. The required inputs are crop
type, and the planting and harvesting dates for winter wheat, grain sorghum,
corn, soybeans, pasture, alfalfa and fallow.
Surface Runoff, Interception, and Infiltration
The Soil Conservation Service method (10) is widely accepted for pre-
dicting the total volume of surface runoff produced by a design storm. The
equation takes the form
= (P - 0.2S)2 ( j
^ P + 0.8S u*'
where Q = direct surface runoff, P = precipitation, and S = the maximum poten-
tial difference between precipitation and runoff, all inches. The initial
abstraction, IA = 0.2S, which consists of surface storage, interception losses,
and water which infiltrates into the soil prior to runoff, must be satisfied
before surface runoff can occur.
The SCS method involves assigning runoff curve numbers to specific ante-
15
-------
TABLE 4. IRRIGATION DESIGN CLASS DESCRIPTIONS FOR SOILS IN THE DISPOSAL AREA
(From Kansas Irrigation Guide (15))
_____
gation Profile
soil depth
class ft Soil class description
1 3.0 Deep soils with silt loam or silty clay loam surface layers
and slowly to very slowly permeable heavy clay and claypan
subsoils.
2 3.0 Deep soils with silty clay or clay textures throughout.
Surface infiltration and subsoil permeability are very slow
when the soil is moist. Shrinkage from drying causes ex-
tensive cracking, resulting in high infiltration rates until
swelling occurs.
3 5.0 Deep soils with silt loam, loam, clay loam, or silty clay
loam surface layers and clay loam, silty clay loam, or silty
clay subsoils. Subsoil permeability is slow to moderately
slow. Shrinkage cracks resulting from drying in the soils
with more clayey subsoil textures give a relatively high
initial infiltration rate.
4 2.5 Moderately deep soils with silt loam, clay loam, or silty
clay loam surface layers and clay loam or silty clay sub-
soils with predominantely moderately slow permeability.
5 5.0 Deep soils with silt loam, loam, clay loam, or silty clay
loam surface layers and subsoils. Subsoil permeability:
moderate to moderately slow.
6 3.0 Moderately deep soils with silt loam or loam surface layers
and loam, clay loam, or silty clay subsoils with moderate
to moderately slow permeability.
7 5.0 Deep soils with silt loam, loam or very fine sandy loam
surface layers and moderately permeable, medium textured
subsoils.
8 2.5 Moderately deep soils with silt loam, loam or very fine
sandy loam surface layers and moderately permeable clay
loam, loam, or silt loam subsoils.
9 5.0 Deep soils with fine sandy loam and loam surface layers and
subsoils that have moderately rapid permeability. Avail-
able water capacity is moderate to low.
10 5.0 Soils are moderately deep over sand with sandy loam to loam
surface layers and moderately rapid to rapidly permeable
subsoils with low available water capacity.
11 5.0 Deep soils with loamy fine sand or loamy sand surface layers
and moderately rapid to rapidly permeable subsoils.
12 5.0 Deep rapidly permeable soils with sand or fine sand tex-
tures throughout.
16
-------
cedent moistures, soil types, and land use and conservation practices. The
runoff curve numbers (N) used in the model are shown in Table 5. They are
TABLE 5. SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS FOR CONDITION II*
Soil class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Row crops
86
86
82
82
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
65
Alfalfa
83
83
78
78
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
55
Wheat
84
84
81
81
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
61
Pasture
80
80
74
74
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
39
Fallow
84
84
78
78
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
61
*Condition II - During the growing season, available soil moisture
in the top 1 ft is between 0.5 and 0.8 of field capacity. For the
non-growing season, the range is 0.6 to 0.9 of field capacity.
specified by crop type and the selected range of soil (15) types defined in
Table 4. The input N (10) is based on condition II antecedent moisture. For
the soil moisture accounting model, condition II is an upper zone soil mois-
ture between 0.5 and 0.8 of field capacity during the growing season or
between 0.6 and 0.9 of field capacity during the dormant season. When the
soil moisture is less than 0.5 or 0.6 of field capacity, depending upon the
season, N is assumed to be a condition I antecedent soil moisture given by
^ (20)
When the soil moisture is greater than the upper limit set for the season, the
condition III curve number is obtained by the equation
" (21)
•L.J.J.
Then by definition
S = ijp - 10 (22)
and S is substituted into equation 19 to calculate the runoff volume.
The interception-storage is fixed at 0.1 in. and depleted at the poten-
tial free surface evaporation rate. According to Ward (37), this storage
should account for 10 to 20 percent of the annual precipitation. Of the
previously tested Kansas and Oregon stations, approximately 16 to 18 percent
17
-------
of the annual precipitation was accounted as interception-storage losses.
After runoff and interception amounts are deducted, the remaining excess
precipitation infiltrates into the soil.
Percolation and Redistribution
The percolation rate and redistribution of the infiltrated water within
the soil profile is dependent upon the hydraulic properties of the soil (11,
p. 152). Saxton (31) has modeled percolation by means of physical redistri-
bution. Using this scheme, a soil layer is allowed to take on an equivalent
amount of water to raise storage to a level of 0.9 saturation with the excess
being cascaded to the next layer. This continues until all water available
for percolation is stored. Movement of gravitational water is then computed
by the one-dimensional Darcy equation for unsaturated flow using moisture-
tension and moisture-conductivity relationships.
Redistribution is similar in this model, but simplified. Since the field
capacity of a soil is generally evaluated two days after saturation (11, p.
163) the model allows upper zone soil moisture to decrease to field capacity
in two days if it is not already below that level as a result of AET needs.
This is accomplished by setting the soil moisture equal to field capacity and
redistributing the excess to the lower zone. Since the lower zone generally
does not receive water as a result of small events, greater periods of time
pass between recharges. When left undisturbed for more than two days, soils
usually achieve a moisture level which is less than field capacity. Accord-
ingly, the lower zone soil moisture is decreased to 0.9 of field capacity when
the time between recharges exceeds two days, and the excess is considered to
percolate out of the root zone. This modified method appears to result in
reasonable estimates of vertical movement of water for the soil groups tested.
The soil moisture properties for the 12 soil classes programmed into the model
are listed in Table 3.
Snow on the Disposal Area
A degree-day approach of dissipating accumulated snow is incorporated to
simulate winter conditions on the disposal area. Approaches such as presented
by Leaf (19) based on thermodynamic principles are good representations of
actual snow physics, although input requirements limit widespread application.
Empirical equations developed to approximate the thermodynamic principles are
simpler but generally provide less satisfactory results (21, p. 275). The
degree-day approach stands only on the virtue of simplicity in that it re-
quires only the dry-bulb temperature as input. The method has the disadvan-
tage of neglecting humidity, radiation, and other factors which influence snow
melt, although good results have been obtained (20).
Precipitation occurring on days having an average temperature <_ 32°F were
accumulated as water equivalents of snow. The snow melt function used in this
model as presented by Gray (9, pp. 9.12-9.14) is
M = C(Ta - Tb) (23)
18
-------
where M is the snow melt, Ta = the mean daily atmospheric temperature, Tb =
the base temperature, and C = the degree-day coefficient. This computes snow
melt as a result of atmospheric conditions. If the snow is initially con-
sidered to be at 32°F, then the relation used by Linsley (20) to compute snow
melt by rainfall is
D = (1/144)(P)(Ta - 32) (24)
where D = the snow melted by rainfall, P =• the amount of rainfall, and Ta =
the mean daily temperature. The total snow melt runoff (M + D) is added to
the precipitation and wastewater applied for the day to obtain P in Eq. (19).
Evaporation from snow (sublimation) works basically on the same princi-
ples as evaporation from a free water surface (9, pp. 3.7-3.8). Approximately
5 percent of incident shortwave radiation is reflected from a free water
surface, while from 80 to 90 percent is reflected by a clean, dry snow surface.
Because of changes in crystalline structure, density, and the amount of dirt
on the surface, the albedo drops to 50 percent or less as snow ages. An
average albedo, r, of 70 percent is used when applying the Penman equation to
a snow surface in this model. It is also assumed that a water equivalent of
0.1 in. in the pack provides sufficient cover to treat the evaporation calcu-
lation in terms of a snow surface. The resulting daily sublimation from the
pack is small, generally less than 0.01 in., but through the winter months
this may account for some dissipation of the pack.
Criteria for Disposal on the Area
Water from the storage facility will not be applied on the disposal area
under the following conditions:
1) when there is less than one day's irrigation water in the facility,
2) when the ground is frozen,
3) when the mean daily temperature < 32°F, and
4) when the upper zone soil moisture is greater than a specified
percentage of maximum available moisture.
The soil is considered to be frozen if the sum of the previous two days
temperature < 64°F. Thawing occurs when the sum of the average temperatures
for any three consecutive day period is > 114°F.
The percentage of upper zone available moisture, PAVLU, defines the
fourth condition for irrigation. It allows various irrigation management
schemes to be tested. By setting PAVLU • 0.0, a non-irrigation or pure reten-
tion pond surface evaporation system can be tested. PAVLU = 0.90 tests an
intensive application of water, while PAVLU = 0.50 tests a normal irrigation
management scheme. The available moisture for the 12 soil classes is listed
in Table 3.
FEEDLOT RUNOFF
Feedlot surfaces differ greatly from disposal area surfaces. Repeated
19
-------
animal milling works the surface, compacting underlying soil layers. As a
result, normal infiltration is impaired and influenced by the development of
the lot. Difficulties arise when attempting to apply normal surface runoff
models to a feedlot.
Models incorporating the SCS method to predict feedlot runoff volume have
been tested in Kansas (16), Oregon (39), and Minnesota (18) . Reasonable
results have been obtained by using curve number (N) varying from 91 to 98
depending on surface type and antecedent conditions. General agreement exists
that N = 91 is satisfactory for antecedent conditions I and II, and N = 97 is
satisfactory for condition III on unsurfaced lots.
With very limited feedlot runoff data from feedlots at Gretna, Nebraska
(36), Bushland, Texas (6), and Pratt, Kansas (22), a modified version of the
SCS method was developed. Attempts to evaluate runoff curve numbers using the
soil-moisture deficit of the surface provided less satisfactory results than a
simpler model used by Koelliker (16). Studies by Miner (23) and Swanson (36)
suggest that rainfalls of certain intensity and duration are required before
any runoff occurs from the feedlot surface. Also, SCS calculated runoff
quantities from large rainfall events significantly underestimate the actual
runoff. Since infiltration is impeded in a developed lot, it is assumed that
any precipitation above an amount required to fill depression storage and
saturate the soil above the impervious layer would run off. Various rainfall
magnitudes were tested to determine the minimum storm required to produce
runoff.
The model which eventually provided the best results specifies that
surface runoff will not occur if
1) the 3-day antecedent moisture and the precipitation on the day of
concern is < 0.5 in.,
2) the average temperature for the day < 30°F,and
3) the soil is frozen.
While the ground is frozen, all precipitation is accumulated as snow on
the feedlot. When the soil thaws, the accumulated volume of snow is allowed
to run off with N = 97. Snow on the feedlot is handled differently than on
the disposal area because of major differences in two surfaces. In most parts
of the U.S., a volume nearly equivalent to the accumulated winter precipita-
tion quantity is retained in the storage facility during the course of the
season. Even at high N, routing small melts during winter months through the
SCS equation would result in a significantly smaller volume. Urine addition
by confined animals compensates for sublimation losses from snow and may
account for differences discussed. Irrigation is generally unfavorable in
winter so the timing of additions to the pond is not as important as the
volume accumulated during the season.
Best results are obtained by partitioning the year into a growing season
and dormant season; April-October and November-March, respectively. During
the growing season, a maximum of 1.25 in. (variable GROW in FROMKSU) is routed
through the SCS equation with N = 97 if the 3-day antecedent moisture is >
0.75 in. or N = 91 if the antecedent moisture <_ this amount. For any day
20
-------
having an event > 1.25 in., the excess is considered to run directly off the
feedlot surface. During the dormant season, the maximum precipitation routed
through the SCS equation is lowered to 1.0 in. (variable DORM in FROMKSU) and
N = 91 is used when 3-day antecedent moisture < 0.5 in. Otherwise, N = 97 is
used during this season.
A regression analysis between calculated values of feedlot runoff and
actual data resulted in a normal range of r2 values between 0.80 and 0.85 on
unsurfaced lots. At the present time no attempts to simulate surfaced lots
have been made since there is a lack of actual data for this type. The
regression analysis provides some justification for the procedures used in
modeling the feedlot runoff.
THE STORAGE FACILITY
A runoff control structure generally resembles an inverted frustrum of a
pyramid. The configuration of the general prismatoid in Figure 4, allows
W
/
/
i> T
L-X. \
o \- :
/
/' 4h
HMAX
Figure 4. Configuration of storage facility.
independent variations of base length (L), base width (W), and side slopes
(S), to be used in the model. These parameters along with the maximum depth
of water (HMAX) are input variables to the program and define the maximum
volume of water which the facility can contain before discharging. By speci-
fying a particular size and shape of pond, the surface area and the evapora-
tion can be computed for any storage volume. The volumetric equation for a
general prismatoid (33) is
V
\ h (Bl + 4Bm + B2)
(25)
where V = the volume, h = the depth, Bl = the bottom surface area, B2 = the
top surface area, and Bm = the area of a plane at h/2 above the bottom.
21
-------
Feedlot runoff contains a high suspended solids load which impedes
seepage from the storage facility. Although seepage may continue for certain
soils and for facilities which experience wet/dry cycles, no verified exfil-
tration rates are available. A sealed condition or zero exfiltration is,
therefore, assumed for the pond. The inputs to the facility include runoff
from the feedlot and direct contributions of precipitation to the receiving
area which is the pond surface area at HMAX. Outflows consist of water pumped
out for irrigation purposes, surface evaporation, and overflows.
22
-------
SECTION 5
TESTING PROCEDURE
The feedlot model was calibrated and tested on 10 stations in Kansas and
18 other stations distributed throughout the United States. Stations which
have at least 25 years of daily rainfall and maximum and minimum temperatures
on magnetic tape (obtained from the National Climate Center, Asheville, North
Carolina) were used.
A standard run was tested for each station. The standard run consisted
of a 40-ac feedlot, 80-ac disposal area, corn crop on the disposal area, Soil
Type 5 as determined by the Kansas Irrigation Guide (15), irrigation disposal
rate of 0.50 in./day (over disposal area), irrigation management in which
disposal is allowed whenever soil moisture falls to 0.9 of available moisture
in the upper zone, and a maximum pond depth of 9 ft. Crop growth coefficients
(Blaney-Criddle) were adjusted to correspond to the particular location, as
described in Appendix A. A 3:1 pond side slope was used for all runs. The
pond length to width ratio varied from 2:1 to 1:1 (the effect of this para-
meter on results is negligible).
For the initial run for a station, the pond dimensions were estimated to
provide 100 percent control. The dimensions were then adjusted until 100
percent control of the feedlot runoff was maintained for at least a 25-year
simulation period.
The standard runs were specifically designed to test the influence of
climate (precipitation and temperature) on facility needs. Other variables
effect the size of the pond for 100 percent control. These include feedlot
area, maximum pond depth, disposal area, soil, crop, disposal rate, and
disposal management. (Disposal management always refers to the percentage of
the upper zone available moisture at which irrigation disposal is allowed).
Each of these parameters was varied using otherwise standard conditions to
determine the relative magnitude of variations upon pond size. This was
accomplished by varying the pond size until 100 percent control was achieved.
The ratio of the pond size to "standard" pond size was designated as the
"design factor" for the variable.
For the 20 stations which have positive moisture deficits, an evaporation
disposal system was also tested. An evaporation system is simulated by setting
the disposal management parameter PAVLU to zero, which eliminates irrigation
disposal. Thus the only disposal from the pond is by evaporation. The maxi-
mum pond depth was set at six feet for these runs, and the pond dimensions
adjusted until 100 percent of feedlot runoff was controlled. Since irrigation
was not allowed on the disposal area, the moisture accounting for the disposal
23
-------
area reduces to a natural accounting which provides useful information for
examining relative effects in calibrating the model.
The pond surface area rather than pond volume is the important dependent
variable for the evaporation testing. The standard run results for the 28
stations tested are given in Table 6. PONVOL is the pond volume required for
100 percent control of runoff when a land disposal site is utilized. SURF is
the surface area for 100 percent control for stations which could conceivably
be operated as simple evaporation systems. The base period for testing was
normally 25-28 continuous years of the time interval 1948-1975. Other time
periods were used when problems were experienced with the magnetic tape data
for the base period. Sacramento was the only station not having a continuous
25 year record.
24
-------
TABLE 6. CLEtATOLOGICAL VARIABLES AND STANDARD RUN RESULTS FOR IRRIGATION AND
EVAPORATION DISPOSAL
Statioa No.a
Phoenix, A2
Bakers field, CA
Sacramento , CA
Dublin, GA
Boise, ID
Urfaana, IL
W. Lafayette, IN
Belleville, KS
Colby, KS
Dodge Cicy, KS
Ellsworth, KS
Garden Cicy, KS
Goodland, KS
Hays, KS
Horton, KS
Independence, KS
Topeka, KS
Crookston, MM
Mia. -St. Paul, MN
Las Vegas, MV
Wooscer, OH
Okla. Cicy, OK
Corvallis, OR
Pendlacon, OR
Centarville, 3D
Beevilla, TX
College Stac. , T2
Hereford, IX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lake
evap.
in.
71
38
56
35
42
36
34
41
55
52
45
50
51
58
37
43
44
25
34
35
31
55
28
42
37
47
56
64
Free.
in.
7
5
18
45
11
39
37
30
18
21
27
13
16
23
37
36
34
19
25
4
39
31
39
13
24
30
40
17
^Db
in.
64
83
38
-10
31
- 3
- 3
11
37
41
18
42
35
35
0
7
10
7
3
31
- 3
24
-11
29
13
17
16
47
PONVOLC?REVA?d
ac-in
110
31
609
1081
195
615
1017
355
173
193
385
170
145
285
639
363
681
562
550
75
2215
379
L862
120
502
1094
535
234
0.10
0.06
0.32
—
0.26
—
—
0.73
0.33
0.34
0.60
0.30
0.31
0.40
—
0.34
0.77
—
—
0.05
_ _
0.56
—
0.31
0.65
0.64
0.71
0.27
SURF8 Period of
record
ac
1.9
0.9
12.1
—
4.4
—
—
47.9,
3.6'
8.5
20.4
7.2*
4.6
12.6
—
62.4
52.3
—
—
1.3
__
24.6
—
2.3
32.3
48.4
47.9
6.3
49-75
48-75.
30-72n
49-73
49-70
27-51
11-35
49-73
50-74
49-73
46-70
50-74
49-73
43-73
46-70
43-72
49-73
13-42
49-73.
49-73-
01-25 .
48-75J
31-65
45-69
49-73
51-75
21-45
49-73
local
years
27
28
35
25
22
27
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
23
35
25
25
25
25
25
Numbers identify stations on ?igs. 5, 5, and 7.
Moisture Deficit * Lake Svap. - Free.
C100 percent control volume for standard run (40-ac faedlot) vith. irrigation
disposal.
£>XEVAP « Prec. * Lake Evap.
100 percent control surface area for disposal by evaporation (40-ac faedlot and
6 ft pond depth).
Colby evaporation simulation period is 1900-74 (75 yrs).
^Garden City evaporation simulation period is 1915-74 (60 yrs).
Eight years of data aissing in middla of this record. Discontinuous run.
Alfalfa substituted for corn as standard crop.
Type 3 soil substituted for Type 5 soil as standard crop.
25
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
IRRIGATION DISPOSAL
The pond volume for 100 percent control is usually 1.5 to 3 times that
required to impound the P25 critical event. Table 7 compares the 100 percent
control size to the pond volume required to store the P25 event for a 40-acre
feedlot. The frequency of occurrence of this event (or greater) for the
simulation period for each run is also listed. Because the total record
length is 726 years and the probability of at least a P25 event occurring
during any random 25 year period is 64 percent, the expected frequency of
occurrence of this event is 19. The actual frequency of 21 indicates that P25
estimates obtained from rainfall frequency charts were reasonably representa-
tive. It is possible that the P25 values for Crookston, MN, and Wooster, OH,
are low since they registered six and four P25 events during the record period,
respectively. An increase in Crookston P25 of 0.3 in. eliminates three of the
six critical events. Otherwise, this station had a normal climate pattern, so
that the P25 selected for this station may have been somewhat low. Wooster,
OH, is different in that it appears to have experienced abnormally wet condi-
tions during the 1901-1925 simulation period. The pond volume required for
this station is 20 percent higher than the next highest station. It should be
noted that P25 was used only as an indicator and did not alter the budget
computations in any way. Thus, the choice of P25 was not critical except to
determine the relevance of the event to designing a feedlot runoff control
system.
Table 7 also shows that the 100 percent control volume is larger than the
P25 volume except for the arid climate stations. Although 21 P25 events were
registered, in only one case did a pond discharge coincide with the date of
the P25 event. In six other cases a pond discharge occurred within two months
of the P25 event. But because the pond size for these cases ranged from 1.8
to 3.5 times the P25 size, the P25 event never singularly controlled the size
of the pond for any station at any time. Occasionally antecedent wet condit-
ions caused the pond to be full enough prior to the P25 event to cause an
overflow shortly thereafter. Figure 5 indicates that there is almost no
correlation between P25 and the 100 percent control pond volume for the 28
stations tested, although six arid to semiarid stations in Table 7 (1, 2, 9,
12, 13, 20) had 100 percent control volumes less than the P25 volume. The
explanation for this seeming contradiction is that only one of these stations
experienced a P25 event, and that the feedlot runoff algorithm never yields
100 percent runoff from a given precipitation event. It thus follows that the
P25 event is an insufficient criteria for the design of feedlot runoff control
facilities and that so-called "chronic" conditions profoundly influence the
size of facilities.
26
-------
TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF CRITICAL EVENT (P25) TO 100 AND 96 PERCENT CONTROL
POND VOLUMES ^
Station
No.
P25 P25 P25 100% Ratio 96%
frequency event volume volume 100%/P25 volume
in.
ac-in
ac-in
ac-in
Phoenix, AZ
Bakersfield, CA
Sacramento, CA
Dublin, GA
Boise, ID
Urbana, IL
W. Lafayette, IN
Belleville, KS
Colby, KS
Dodge City, KS
Ellsworth, KS
Garden City, KS
Goodland, KS
Hays, KS
Ho r ton, KS
Independence, KS
Topeka, KS
Crookston, MN
Minn. -St. Paul, MN
Las Vegas, NV
Wooster, OH
Okla. City, OK
Corvallis, OR
Pendleton, OR
Centerville, SD
Beeville, TX
College Stat., TX
Hereford, TX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
6
0
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1=21
4.5
3.4
8.1
7.3
2.7
5.0
4.9
5.1
4.5
4.6
5.4
4.5
4.3
4.7
5.9
6.7
6.1
4.1
4.8
2.7
3.9
6.9
6.8
2.3
4.7
8.1
8.4
4.9
184
136
324
292
108
200
196
204
180
184
216
180
172
188
236
268
244
164
192
108
156
276
272
92
188
324
336
196
110
31
609
1081
195
615
1017
355
173
193
385
170
145
285
689
363
681
562
550
75
2215
379
1862
120
502
1094
535
234
0.6
0.2
1.9
3.7
1.8
3.1
5.2
1.7
1.0
1.1
1.8
0.9
0.8
1.5
2.9
1.4
2.8
3.4
2.9
0.7
14.2
1.4
6.8
1.3
2.7
3.4
1.6
1.2
44
12
244
432
78
246
407
142
69
77
154
68
58
114
276
145
272
225
220
30
886
152
745
48
201
438
214
94
aP25 is the 25-yr, 24-hr storm in inches.
Pond volume for 40-ac feedlot = P25 x 40.
Pond volume required for 100 percent control under standard conditions
(PONVOL).
Pond volume required for 96 percent control under standard conditions =
100 percent Vol. x 0.4.
27
-------
14
o
Q.
^ 2
o
o
q 10 •
o
UJ
6-
r 4
o
£C
O
U.
UJ
-
o 10
o
§ 6
0.
UJ
5 2-1
cc
10
21
• 7
• 23
4 • 26<
• 27
• •22
20«
LOG(PONVOL)=O.I48(P25)*|.81|
R = 0.33
I 23456789 10
25-YR,24-HR PRECIPITATION, in (P25)
Figure 5. The 100 percent control volume as a function of the 25-yr. storm.
28
-------
In order to generalize the results of this study and to provide a more
appropriate guideline for the sizing of this type of facility, regression
analyses were performed with a number of selected climatic indices. The
detailed results are listed in Appendix C. From this analysis it became clear
that the moisture deficit (MD) is the single climatic variable that is the
most readily available and provides the highest correlation for any single
parameter. The results of this regression are plotted on Figure 6. In the
absence of historical data, and/or computer facilities, Figure 6 allows one to
obtain an estimate of the 100 percent control volume at any location under
standard conditions. The equation of the line is:
Log1Q(PONVOL) = 2.910 - 0.0150 MD (26)
where PONVOL = 100% Control Pond Volume for a 40-ac feedlot (and other
"standard" conditions) in acre-inches; and MD = moisture deficit in inches.
EVAPORATION
The required pond surface area for the 20 stations operated as simple
evaporation disposal systems are listed in Table 6. Regression analyses
performed on these data with various climatic indices are also given in Appen-
dix C. The climatic index that has the highest correlation and is the most
readily available is the ratio of mean annual precipitation to mean annual
lake evaporation (PREVAP). The regression equation is:
Log1Q SURF = 0.091 + 2.166 PREVAP (27)
in which SURF = 100% Control Pond Surface Area for a 40-ac feedlot in acres;
and PREVAP = ratio of annual precipitation to evaporation. The standard
conditions for the evaporation runs, in addition to the 40-ac feedlot, inclu-
ded 3:1 sideslopes and an HMAX = 6 ft. Thus, the pond surface area also
implies a minimum pond volume to achieve 100 percent control, as listed in
Table 6. The regression line is plotted in Figure 7.
METHOD FOR SIZING COMPONENTS
A prediction equation similar to that developed by Beasley (1) is used to
determine the volume of a retention pond required at a specific feedlot for an
irrigation-disposal system. The equation is,
RPV =» PONVOL xSRxSxCxDxRxHxMx PRC (28)
where RPV = retention pond volume for the specific feedlot, acre-inches
PONVOL = 100% control retention-pond volume for the specific location
under standard conditions, acre-inches (Fig. 6 or Eq. 26)
SR = ratio of the site specific feedlot size to the 40 acre
standard run size
S =» soil type factor
C = crop factor
D =» disposal area to feedlot area ratio factor
R = disposal rate factor
H =» maximum pond-depth factor
29
-------
& 2-
o
o
O
UJ
UJ 6
4-
2-
IOC-
§
Q 6-
4-
2-
UJ
DC
10
26
28
LO G (PONVOL)= 2.91 - 0.0150 (MD)
20*
-20 -JO 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
MOISTURE DEFICIT, in (MD)
Figure 6. The 100 percent control volume as a function of moisture deficit.
30
-------
24* LOG (SURF) = 2.166(PREVAPh0.091
R2=0.92
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
PRECIPITATION TO LAKE EVAPORATION (PREVAP)
100
Figure 7. The 100 percent control surface area for evaporation systems
as a function of PREVAP.
31
-------
M = irrigation disposal-management factor
PRC = percentage of runoff-controlled factor
The standard runs were used to determine the effects of climate on the
sizing of runoff-retention ponds with or without (evaporation) land systems.
These runs were restricted to one feedlot size soil and crop type disposal
management practice, disposal area size, irrigation disposal rate and manage-
ment practice and retention pond depth. By repetitive runs each time changing
only one of these variables, the coefficients in Eq. 28 can be obtained by
computing the ratio of pond size required for the variation run to the stan-
dard run. The coefficients thus developed are listed in Tables 8 through 13.
It would have been exceedingly costly to make a variable change of every
variable for all stations. More than 300 computer runs were made, however
which allowed an approximate determination of these coefficients. Included in
Tables 8 through 13 are the standard deviations and number of runs for each
coefficient along with its average value.
"PRC" is a factor for the percentage of runoff that must be controlled by
the system. It has a substantial effect upon the size of pond required. The
ratio of pond size to 100 percent control size, PRC, is plotted against the
actual percentage of runoff controlled in Figure 8 for the 28 runs which
resulted in less than 100 percent control. This curve, the regression equa-
tion noted on Figure 8, or the rounded values in Table 14 can be used to
determine PRC for any percentage of control desired. In no case should the
curves be extrapolated for a percentage of control less than 94 percent.
There is a substantial reduction in pond size for the "nearly" 100 per-
cent control values of 98 or 99 percent in Table 14. At 97 percent control
the pond volume is approximately one-half that required for 100 percent con-
trol. The 96 percent control column in Table 7 is included for comparison.
The 96 percent volume is obtained by multiplying the 100 percent control
volume by a PRC = 0.4 for 96 percent control from Table 14. The 96 percent
control volume is greater than P25 design volume for 11 stations in Table 7.
Thus, if the performance standard were restated as "P25 volume or the 96
percent volume, whichever is greater", the P25 performance criteria would
govern approximately 60 percent of the cases, while the 96 percent critera
would govern the other 40 percent. The 96 percent factor has a probability
equal to that of the P25 event, although P25 is based upon frequency of occur-
rence while 96 percent control is based upon total volume. It is used here as
an example. If 98 percent control was to be accepted as a reasonable level of
performance for feedlots in addition to P25, half of the 28 stations tested
would be governed by the 98 percent criteria and the other half by P25. If,
conversely, P25 were used as an exclusive criteria, the average level of
control for the 22 stations for which the 100 percent control size was greater
than the P25 volume, is approximately 97 percent. Several of the humid cli-
mate stations in Table 7 (7, 21, 23) have ratios of P25 to 100 percent too low
to evaluate using Figure 8, so these stations were not averaged in to the
above figure of 97 percent.
32
-------
TABLE 8. DESIGN FACTOR S FOR SOILS IN DISPOSAL AREA
Soil type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11*
12*
S
0.97
0.95
0.96
0.96
1.00
0.98
0.99
0.99
1.00
0.92
0.84
0.76
Std. dev.
0.04
0.15
0.09
0.14
Standard
0.14
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.13
0.09
0.15
No. of runs
6
8
10
6
27
8
7
5
7
5
6
7
*Values for these soils should be used cautiously;
groundwater contamination from percolating water
should be assessed.
TABLE 9. DESIGN FACTOR C FOR CROP ON DISPOSAL AREA
Crop
Corn
Wheat
Grain sorghum
Soybeans
Pasture
Alfalfa
C
1.00
0.84
0.99
1.22
0.86
0.87
Std. dev.
Standard
0.17
0.10
0.22
0.09
0.14
No. of runs
25
5
6
5
10
8
TABLE 10.
DESIGN FACTOR D
AREA TO FEEDLOT
FOR RATIO OF
AREA
DISPOSAL
Ratio
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
D Std
1.25 0
. dev. No.
.30
1.00 Standard
0.82 0
0.79 0
.09
.12
of runs
10
22
10
10
33
-------
TABLE 11. DESIGN FACTOR R FOR DISPOSAL RATE PER DAY
OVER DISPOSAL AREA
Disposal
rate, in/day R Std. dev. No. of runs
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.00
0.88
0.82
0.79
Standard
0.13
0.18
0.20
23
10
10
10
TABLE 12. DESIGN FACTOR H FOR MAXIMUM DEPTH OF RETENTION
POND
Max. depth, ft H Std. dev. No. of runs
4
6
9
1.24
1.08
1.00
0.22
0.13
Standard
5
5
13
TABLE 13. DESIGN FACTOR M FOR IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT
Percent available
soil moisture M Std. dev. No. of runs
(PAVLU)*
90
50
1.00
1.98**
Standard
0.86
28
9
*PAVLU is the percentage of available moisture in the
upper zone below which irrigation occurs if other
management conditions are met.
**For locations with moisture deficits less than 10 in.
the 50 percent rate should be used cautiously. The
probability of having enough days per year to dispose
of all runoff decreases rapidly.
34
-------
LOT
Data were not available for
percent controls less than94%
interpolations below 54% may
be in error.
PRC"'= 39.37 - 0.3937 (% RO)
R2= 0.79
0.2'
100
98 96 94 92 90 88
PERCENTAGE OF RUNOFF CONTROLLED (%RO)
Figure 8. Graphical determination of the PRC design factor.
35
-------
TABLE 14. DESIGN FACTOR PRC FOR PERCENTAGE
OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF CONTROLLED
Percent controlled PRC
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
1.0
0.70
0.55
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
To determine required surface area for a retention pond that serves
exclusively as an evaporation pond, one reads from Figure 7 the SURF value for
the PREVAP of the particular location of the feedlot and multiply the value of
that surface area by SR.
EPSA = SURF x SR (29)
in which EPSA = evaporation pond surface area required for 100 percent control:
(SR and SURF were previously defined.) If the pond depth is greater than 6
feet the EPSA value should be maintained, which results in a larger storage
volume than required under standard conditions. If the depth is less than 6
feet, EPSA should be increased to provide a storage volume equivalent to that
for the 6 ft. standard EPSA.
The effects of variables on evaporation pond sizing were not evaluated
because few variables could be changed. The consequences of a discharge from
an evaporation pond seem to preclude a design that would not provide 100
percent control.
EXAMPLES
The following examples will illustrate use of the procedure:
Runoff Control with Irrigation Disposal
A 60-ac feedlot operation at Topeka, Kansas.
Crop: Alfalfa
Disposal area: 120 ac
Disposal rate: 1.5 in./day over entire disposal area on an irrigation
day
Maximum retention pond depth: 6.00 ft
Disposal management: Dispose anytime available moisture less than 90
percent of field capacity
Control capable of a) 100 percent, and b) 98 percent
36
-------
Soil type: 7 (silt loam)
Annual precipitation: 37 in.
Mean annual lake evaporation: 48 in.
Moisture deficit (MD): 11 in.
PONVOL from Fig. 6: 600 ac-in.
SR = 1.50
s =
c =
D =•
R =
H =•
M =
PRC =
0.99
0.87
1.00
0.82
1.08
1.00
1.00
a
and 0.55,
D
Thus,
RPV = (600)(1.50)(0.99)(.0.87)(1.00)(0.82)(.l.08)
(1.00)(1.00) = 686 ac-in. (for 100% control)
3.
RPV = 686(0.55), = 378 ac-in. (for 98% control)
b
Runoff Control by Evaporation
An 80-ac feedlot operation at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Annual precipitation: 31 in.
Mean annual lake evaporation = 60 in.
PREVAP = 31/60
SURF from Fig. 7 = 16.5 ac
SR =• 2.0.
Pond depth = 6 ft.
Substituting into Eq. 29,
EPSA = 2.0 x 16.5 = 33.0 ac
37
-------
REFERENCES
1. Beasley, R. P. Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control. The Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA, 1972. 320 pp.
2. Bond, J. J. and W. 0. Willis. Soil Water Evaporation: First Stage
Drying as Influenced by Surface Residue and Evaporation Potential.
Proceedings of Soil Scientists Society of America. 34:924-928, 1970.
3. Burman, R. D., P. A. Rechard, and W. 0. Willis. Evaporation Estimates
for Water Right Transfers. Presented at ASCE Irrigation and Drainage
Division Watershed Management Symposium, Logan, Utah, August 11-13,
1975.
4. Water Information Center, Inc. Climates of the States, Vol. 1 and 2.
Port Washington, N.Y., 1974. 975 pp.
5. U.S. Department of Commerce. Climatological Data. NOAA, Environmental
Data Services, National Climate Center, Asheville, N.C. (Periodical).
6. Clark, R. N., A. D. Schneider, and B. A. Stewart. Analysis of Runoff
from Southern Great Plains Feedlots. Technical Report No. 12, Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Tex., Dec. 1972.
7. Technical Committee on Irrigation Water Requirements of the Irrigation
and Drainage Division. Consumptive Use of Water and Irrigation Water
Requirements. ASCE, New York, N.Y., 1973. 215 pp.
8. Federal Register. Feedlots Point Source Category, Effluent Guidelines
and Standards. 39:5704, Feb. 14, 1974. p. 5704.
9. Gray, D. M. Principles of Hydrology. Water Information Center, Inc.,
Port Washington, N.Y., 1973.
10. Hydrology. National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, U.S. Soil Conser-
vation Service, Washington, D.C., 1972.
11. Israelsen, 0. W., and V. E. Hansen. Irrigation Principles and
Practices, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1962.
447 pp.
12. Jensen, M. E., D. C. N. Robb, and C. E. Franzoy. Scheduling Irrigations
Using Climate-Crop-Soil Data. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
Division, ASCE, Proc. Paper 7131, 96(IR1):25-38, Mar. 1970.
38
-------
13. Jensen, M. E., J. L. Wright, and B. J. Pratt. Estimating Soil Moisture
Depletion From Climate, Crop, and Soil Data. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 14(5) :954-959, 1971.
14. Kanemasu, E. T. Application of Information of Water-Soil-Plant Rela-
tions for Use and Conservation of Water. Kansas Contributing Project
Report Western 67 (revised), Twin Falls, Idaho, 1975.
15. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Kansas Irrigation Guide and Irrigation
Planners Handbook. Salina, KS, 1975. pp. 3-7 to 3-18.
16. Koelliker, J. K., H. L. Manges, and R. I. Lipper. Modeling the Perform-
ance of Feedlot-Runoff-Control Facilities. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, 18:1118-1121, 1975.
17. Kohler, M. A., T. J. Nordenson, and W. E. Fox. Evaporation from Pans
and Lakes. U.S. Weather Bureau Research Paper No. 38, Washington, D.C.,
1955.
18. Larson, L. G. J., P. R. Goodrich, and J. Bosch. Performance of Feedlot
Runoff Control Systems. Paper No. 1529. Miscellaneous Journal Series,
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minn., 1972.
19. Leaf, C. F., and G. E. Brink. Computer Simulation of Snowmelt Within a
Colorado Subalpine Watershed. RM-99. U.S. Rocky Mountain Range Experi-
ment Station, Fort Collins, Colo., Feb. 1973.
20. Linsley, R. K. A Simple Procedure for the Day-to-Day Forecasting of
Runoff from Snowmelt. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union,
24(3):52-67, 1943.
21. Linsley, R. K., M. A. Kohler, and J. L. H. Paulhus. Hydrology for
Engineers, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y,, 1975.
482 pp.
22. Manges, H. L., et al. Treatment and Ultimate Disposal of Cattle Feedlot
Wastes. EPA-660/2-75-013, Environmental Technology Series, National
Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, June 1975. 136 pp.
23. Miner, J. R., et al. Stormwater Runoff from Cattle Feedlots. In:
Proceedings of the National Symposium on Management of Farm Animal
Wastes, SP-0366, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, East
Lansing, MI, May 1966. pp. 23-27.
24. Federal Register. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
38:13528-13540, May 22, 1973.
25. Federal Register. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
40:55182-54186, November 20, 1975.
39
-------
26. Penman, H. L. Natural Evaporation from Open Water, Bare Soil and
Grass. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A,
193:120-145, Apr. 1948.
27. Pisano, M. A. Nonpoint Sources of Pollution: A Federal Perspective.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Proc. Paper
12211, 102(EE3):555-565, June 1976.
28. Federal Register. Pollutant Discharge Elimination Form and Guidelines
Regarding Agricultural and Silvicultural Activities. 38:18000-18004,
July 5, 1973.
29. Ritchie, J. T. Model for Predicting Evaporation from a Row Crop with
Incomplete Cover. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil and Water Con-
servation Research Division, Blackland Conservation Research Center,
Temple, Tex., 1972. pp. 1204-1213.
30. Russell, R. S., and F. B. Ellis. Estimation of the Distribution of
Plant Roots in Soil. Nature, London, England, 1968.
31. Saxton, K. E., H. P. Johnson, and R. H. Shaw. Modeling Evapotrans-
piration and Soil Moisture. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Soil and Water Division, Feb. 1974. pp. 673-
677.
32. Schwab, G. 0., et al. Infiltration, Evaporation and Transpiration.
Soil and Water Conservation Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, N.Y., 1966. pp. 79-90.
33. Selby, S. M. Standard Mathematical Tables. The Chemical Rubber
Company, 21st Ed., 1973. p. 15.
34. Federal Register. State Program Elements Necessary for Participation
in the National Discharge Elimination System. 37:28390-28402, Dec. 22,
1972.
35. Federal Register. State Program Elements Necessary for Participation
in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations. 40:11458-11461, March 18, 1976.
36. Swanson, N. P., et al. Transport of Pollutants from Sloping Cattle
Feedlots as Affected by Rainfall Intensity, Duration, and Recurrence.
In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Livestock Wastes.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1971.
37. Ward, R. C, Interseption. Principles of Hydrology, 2nd ed. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., 1975. pp. 54-70.
38. Water-Loss Investigations; Lake Hefner Studies; Base Data Report.
Professional Paper 270, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 1954.
40
-------
39. Wensink, R. B., and J. R. Miner. Predicting the Performance of Feedlot
Control Facilities at Specific Oregon Locations, WRRI-34. Water
Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oreg., Aug. 1975.
40. Whiting, D. M. Use of Climatic Data in Estimating Storage Days for
Soils Treatment Systems. EPA-600/2-76-250, Environmental Technology
Series, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada,
OK, Nov. 1976. 90 pp.
41. Wright, J. L. and M. E. Jensen. Peak Water Requirements of Crops in
Southern Idaho. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE,
Proc. Paper 8940, 98(IR2):193-201, June, 1972.
42. Zovne, J. J., T. A. Bean, J. K. Koelliker, and J. A. Anschutz. Model
to Evaluate Feedlot Runoff Control Systems. Journal of the Irrigation
and Drainage Division, ASCE, Proc. Paper 12822, 103(IR1):79-92, March,
1977.
43. Zovne, J. J., and A. Nawaz. Predicting Evapotranspiration from Agri-
cultural Watersheds Under Dry Conditions. Contribution No. 164, Kansas
Water Resources Research Institute, Manhattan, Kans. 1975.
41
-------
APPENDIX A
FROMKSU USER'S MANUAL
FROMKSU is a continuous simulation digital computer program written in
"Ten Statement" Fortran for simplicity and compatibility with most machines
having Fortran capability. The model uses historical daily precipitations and
temperatures to evaluate the design of a particular feedlot at a particular
location. This version of FROMKSU reads the required precipitation and
temperature data from tapes provided by the National Weather Service Climatic
Center in Asheville, North Carolina. A magnetic tape drive is required in
order to use this program. Minor alterations would be necessary in order to
read this data from other sources. A printout of the computer program is in
Appendix B.
INPUT REQUIREMENTS
The required inputs to the model are listed in Table A-l.
TABLE A-l. LIST OF INPUT DATA
Variable
Class name
Input method
Definition
I. Climatological variables; either from magnetic tape or mean-monthly
values read from cards for use in Penman Eq. (NAMELIST variables
initialize the tape).
INDST
YSTART
MSTART
YEND
TMAX(ND*)
TMIN(ND)
PREC(ND)
RHD(12)
PSUNS(12)
WIND (12)
RA(12)
NAMELIST/BETA/
NAMELIST/BETA/
NAMELIST/BETA/
NAMEHST/BETA/
Format (Magnetic
Format (Magnetic
Format (Magnetic
Format (Card)
Format (Card)
Format (Card)
Format (Card)
tape)
tape)
tape)
Weather station identifier
Beginning year of simulation
Beginning month of simulation
Ending year of simulation
Maximum daily temperature (°F)
Minimum daily temperature (°F)
Daily precipitation (Inches)
Mean monthly relative humidity (%)
Mean monthly percent sunshine (%)
Mean monthly wind speed (miles/hour)
Mid-monthly intensity of solar radia-
tion (in mm of H20 evaporated/day)
II. Other variables used in Penman Eq.
RCROP NAMELIST/ALPHA Reflectance coef. (albedo) of
crop as ratio (usually 0.23)
(continued)
42
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
BRUNTA NAMELIST/ALPHA
BRUNTB NAMELIST/ALPHA
E NAMELIST/ALPHA
EPRIM NAMELIST/ALPHA
Coefficient, c, for Brunt relation
in Penman Eq. 15 (Fig. 3)
Coefficient, d, for Brunt relation
in Penman Eq. 15 (Fig. 3)
Wind coefficient, e, in Penman
Eq. when calculating potential
ET. (Usually 0.75)
Wind coefficient, e, in Penman
Eq. when calculating lake
evaporation (usually 0.50)
III. Variables relating to the feedlot.
LTAREA NAMELIST/BETA/
GROW NAMELIST/ALPHA/
DORM NAMELIST/ALPHA/
Feedlot area (acres)
Precipitation routed through SCS
Eq. from Nov. thru Mar.
(inches; usually 1.25)
Precipitation routed through
SCS Eq. from April thru Oct.
(inches; usually 1.00)
IV. Variables relating to the retention pond.
L NAMELIST/BETA/
W NAMELIST/BETA/
S NAMELIST/BETA/
HMAX NAMELIST/BETA/
PCVMAX NAMELIST/ALPHA/
Base length of retention pond (feet)
Base width of retention pond (feet)
Pond side-slope as a ratio of run/rise
Maximum working depth of pond (feet)
Level of pond below which irrigation
not allowed, expressed as a ratio
of max, volume (usually 0.05)
V. Variables relating to the disposal area
DSAREA
DSRATE
CROP
SOIL
PAVLU
DGSB
MGSB
DGSE
MGSE
MMAT(12)
NAMELIST/BETA/
NAMELIST/BETA/
NAMELIST/ALPHA/
NAMELIST/ALPHA/
NAMELIST/ALPHA/
NAMELIST/ALPHA/
NAMELIST/ALPHA/
NAMELIST/ALPHA/
NAMELIST/ALPHA/
Format (Card)
Disposal area size (acres)
Irrigation disposal rate (inches/day)
Cover crop on disposal area
Soil type in disposal area
Percentage (as a ratio) of available
soil moisture in upper zone below
which irrigation allowed (usually
0.9, 0.5 or 0.0)
Date of the month the crop is
planted (integer)
Month crop is planted (integer)
Date of month crop is harvested
(integer)
Month crop is harvested (integer)
Mean monthly temperature (°F)
*ND = number of days in month (28-31).
43
-------
INST, YSTART, MSTART, and YEND in Class I of Table A-l locate appropriate
block of precipitation and temperature data on the magnetic tape. The program
automatically adjusts for data which is noted as "missing" (999 values) on the
tape by assuming the previous day's value. The data should always be spot
checked for unreasonable or blank values. The data is provided on 9-track
"Daily Observation" tapes in NWS FORMAT II.* The other variables in this
class refer to development of the Penman Eq. 15 in the text.
The 12 monthly values of RHD, PSUNS, WIND, and MMAT (for subroutine
CROPCO) are obtained from published records (1). If the location of the
feedlot does not correspond to the location of a first-order station in (1),
it is necessary to interpolate values from surrounding first-order stations.
This is not difficult except where first-order stations are sparse and/or the
climate is highly variable over short distances. The data is input by stan-
dard format. The arrangement of this data on cards is shown by example in a
later section. The variable WIND for Z=2 meters is converted to WVD at 30 ft.
internally. The class II variables for use in Eq. 15 have been defined in the
text and should be self explanatory.
The remaining input variables involve physical parameters of the feedlot,
storage pond, and disposal area, respectively. The feedlot requires the speci-
fication of area, LTAREA, and to the variables GROW and DORM, which have been
evaluated as 1.25 inches and 1.00 inches, respectively as discussed in the text,
The Class IV variables specify the storage pond dimensions. The pond is a
prismatoid (Fig. 4) in which the base length, width, side slope, and maximum
working height must be specified. The user should be cognizant of both the
land forms and the general practice in a given area in establishing these
shape variables.
The disposal area requires many inputs, which include physical parameters,
runoff curve numbers (3), crop types and transpiration coefficients, soil
types and soil moisture parameters, and disposal rates and disposal criteria.
DSAREA is self-explanatory. CROP is an integer number designating the crop on
the disposal area: 1 = WHEAT; 2 = GRAIN SORGHUM; 3 = CORN; 4 = SOYBEANS; 5 -
PASTURE; 6 = ALFALFA; 7 = FALLOW. Each of these crops has a consumptive use
coefficient, KCROP(7,12), for each month of the year. The coefficients are
determined internally by subroutine CROPCO. Subroutine CROPCO calculates the
monthly crop growth coefficients, k in Eq. 18, for use in the main program.
The coefficients applied to the potential evapotranspiration (PET), predict
the actual evapotranspiration (AET). These coefficients reflect stage of crop
growth, length of growing season, and mean monthly average temperatures.
Coefficients used for early testing of the model were obtained from the
1962 Kansas Irrigation Guide (5). Since initial testing of the model was
limited to Kansas stations, these monthly coefficients were read into the
computer from data cards. When testing began on stations outside of Kansas,
it was necessary to calculate a set of coefficients for each individual
station. These calculations were time consuming and required data from crop
*For details write National Climatic Center, Federal Bldg., Asheville, NC 28801
44
-------
growth curves. To simplify this, CROPCO was developed which requires a mini-
mal amount of input by the user. These coefficients were determined by proce-
dures outlined in SCS, Technical Release No. 21 (4).
Inputs to the subroutine are mean monthly average temperatures (MMAT),
type of crop (CROP), months (MGSB, MGSE) and days (DGSB, DGSE) when growing
season begins and ends. Table A-2 shows a sample consumptive use calculation
from TR 21 for corn at Raleigh, North Carolina. CROPCO calculates crop growth
coefficients in a similar fashion. Column 10 in Table A-2 is a list of the
consumptive use coefficients k for months in the growing season. The coef-
ficients k are the KCROP (7, 12) monthly crop growth coefficients in subrou-
tine CROPCO. The major difference in the procedure in TR 21 and subroutine
CROPCO is that continuous equations have been developed for crop growth stage
curves in TR 21 which allow computation by the computer.
Approximately 20 points were read from each crop growth stage curve for
winter wheat, sorghum, corn and soybeans. These data were analyzed by a
statistical program which produced best fit equations to the data. In all
cases statistical analysis had clearly shown these equations fit the curves
quite well. Third or fourth order polynomial equations with R2 exceeding 0.97
were used. For perennial crops such as pasture and alfalfa the coefficients
are best given for each individual month. The inputs which the user must
provide for CROPCO are shown in Table A-l, Class V; namely, CROP, DGSB, MGSB,
DGSE, MGSE and MMAT (12).
Figure A-l is the general algorithm of subroutine CROPCO. A shifting
process incorporated into the procedure allows the computer to use normal
looping procedures for crops whose MGSB is greater than its MGSE such as in
winter wheat. A limitation of this program which the user should be aware of
is that in the event the growing season exceeds one year this routine has no
way of detecting this and erroneous results will be obtained.
Since the main program applies the monthly crop coefficient to the entire
month, the coefficient in the beginning and ending month have been prorated to
allow for this. For example, assume a monthly coefficient of 0.30 is cal-
culated for the planting month where the beginning data is the 20th of the
month. Since one-third of a month is used for growth, the 0.30 coefficient is
adjusted to 0.10. The 0.10 coefficient is then applied to the entire month to
achieve essentially the same results.
Testing the program for accuracy was accomplished by inputing the data in
the Table A-2 example into subroutine CROPCO. Table A-3 compares results.
Note the adjustment made in the beginning and ending month.
The curve generated by CROPCO for corn is compared to the TR 21 curve in
Figure A-2. Although these curves are for corn, they are typical of the
closeness of curves for the other crops.
The crop reflection coefficient (RCROP) can be specified by the user.
According to Gray (6), the albedo of green crops varies from 0.20 to 0.25, so
0.23 is a suggested representative value.
45
-------
TABLE A-2. SAMPLE CALCULATION NO. 1—ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE DAILY, MONTHLY AND
SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE-USE BY CORN AT RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA (HARVESTED FOR GRAIN)
Lat. 35° 47' North
(1)
*o
.£ O
4J -H
C H h
a &
*- Apr. 20
cr>
May
June
July
Aug.
Aug. 18
Season
Totals
(2) (3)
CO
CO
4J T3 4J
C C
•H T3 .1-1
O M-l O g O
ft O -H 3 O O.
•O I-l O 4J -O
•H CO
M O CO
CU h CU
PL, 00 CD
4.2
20.8
46.7
71.7
92.5
(5) (6) (7) (8)
cu
t-l 4-1 . CO
•H J3 ft *J 3 CU
CO 00 C H 4J .
•H co cu • o • cd M-I
Co.. IH M u C04JM-I B<4-i'i
CO 6 Pn >s3Vi CU iHCU,M
cu cu o coocu oco i— 10
S 4-1 Q X O. O M-l CJO
63.5 3.05 1.94 .79
69.2 9.79 6.77 .88
76.9 9.81 7.54 1.02
79.4 9.98 7.92 1.06
78.3 5.52 4.32 1.04
28.49
(9) (10)
0)
t>0 4-1 4-1
CO C C
4-1 cu a) cu
CO -H CO -H
O 30
J3 -H -H
[ 1 II I t l[ 1
-1 S M-l U CO M-l .
O Q) Jid C CU Js
H O O O
CJ O O O
.46 .36
.59 .52
1.02 1.04
1.05 1.11
.91 .95
.88
(11)
3
CU
CO
>% 3
iH CO
r*. . Q)
4J CO Si
ecu
o o c
X O -H
.70
3.52
7.84
8.79
4.10
24.95
(12)
3
CU
CO
3 >s
CO
>. • TJ
i-H CO -^.
•H C •
CO O C
Q 0 -rl
.070
.114
.261
.284
.228
*p. 20, IRRIGATION WATER TECHNICAL RELEASE NO. 21, USDA, SCS, 1967
-------
START
V
MGSB - month growing season begins
MGSE - month growing season ends
DGSB - day growing season begins
DGSE - day growing season ends
INPUT7
Months, Da^s when growing season begins, ends
Mean Monthly Average Temperature, Type of Crop
SHIFTING
PROCESS
Calculate
MEDIAN DATES
of months in
growing season
V
Calulate
ACCUMULATIVE
DAYS in
growing season
Calculate
PERCENT of
growing seasor
reaches at mic
(monthly basis)
-dates
SHIFTING
BACK
PROCESS
Calculate
CLIMATIC COEF1
KT
V
Calculate
CROP COEFFICIE
for type of crDp
NTS
OUTPUT
Crop
'Coefficienl
Figure A-l. Subroutine CROPCO flowchart.
47
-------
TABLE A-3. COMPARISON OF k COEFFICIENTS
Midpoint of Period k from Table A-2 k from CROPCO
A (Planting April 20) .36 0.13
M .52 0.53
J 1.04 1.01
J 1.11 1.13
A (Harvest Aug. 18) .95 0.55
SOIL is an integer number representing soil type. There are 12 general
irrigation design class soils as listed in Tables 3 and 5 as selected from
reference (5). The user is required to select the class which best represents
the soils in the area. In doing so, the user is then specifying the runoff
curve numbers and the soil moisture characteristics which are internally
programmed into the model. The soil moisture parameters for each soil class
are listed in Table 3. They are specified using DATA statements. Each soil
class has an upper and lower zone available water (AVLFCV, AVLFCL), field
capacity (FCU, FCL), permanent wilting point (PWPUZ, PWPLZ), and a soil
moisture at saturation (SMSATU, SMSSATL), respectively. All values are input
in inches.
The disposal rate (DSRATE) is an arbitrary number which governs the rate
at which the wastewater in the storage pond is pumped out. Rates of 0.5, 1.0,
1.5 and 2.0 inches per day over the disposal area are used, although 0.5
inches per day was used as the standard. Pump sizes and rate of application
per day to the field are also important considerations in setting DSRATE.
These rates should not cause direct surface runoff unless precipitation occurs
on an irrigation day. The volume of water pumped out per day is DSRATE x
DSAREA. STORM is the design storm P25 for the location obtained from pub-
lished data (7).
PAVLU initiates an irrigation scheme. PAVLU can vary from zero, which
evaluates a "non disposal" or pure evaporation scheme, to one which represents
a scheme in which disposal can occur (other disposal criteria being positive)
whenever the soil moisture falls below field capacity. Normally three condi-
tions are tested: 1) PAVLU = 0.90, intensive irrigation; 2) PAVLU = 0.50,
normal irrigation; 3) PAVLU = 0.0, evaporation. When PAVLU = 0, natural
moisture accounting continues in the disposal area. The accounting can be
used to adjust the natural moisture budget to expected values for the location
being tested, and to determine if irrigation is producing excessive additional
runoff.
E is the coefficient e in the mass transfer part of the Penman Equation
This is the only other coefficient besides BRUNTA and BRUNTB which should be
adjusted by the user in the Penman equation. It should have a value ranging
from 0.5 to 1.0, depending upon average wind velocities. This factor can be
used to adjust the lake evaporation to the published value for a location (2)
or (8).
48
-------
\AO
1.20
f- 1.00
z
UJ
o
u_
u.
LJ
O
O
X
r-
o
DC
Q.
o
a:
o
0.80
0.60-
0.40
SCS Curve
Subroutine CROPCO Curve
0.20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PERCENT OF GROWING SEASON FOR CORN
Figure A-2. Comparison of crop growth stage coefficient curves for corn.
-------
EXAMPLE
A typical 25-year simulation for Belleville, Kansas, is included here for
discussion and demonstration.
Figure A-3 is a display of all card images in proper order for all data
which is input either by NAMELIST or by formatted READ statements. The
NAMELIST statement is convenient for variables which are changed regularly
from run to run. Since the variables are named in the NAMELIST, the ordering
of variables within the list can be changed. The statement, however, must
begin with the NAMELIST identifier (i.e., &ALPHA or &BETA) and end with &END.
If a compiler does not have NAMELIST capability, these variables would best be
input using formatted READ statements.
All formatted data must be input exactly as shown on the cards, except
for card no. 1. The city and state is an alphanumeric field of 20 spaces
beginning in column 21. Any combination of letters, numbers, symbols, or
blanks can be used in fields 21 through 40. The program ignores the remaining
fields on this card.
The meteorological data is on card nos. 6-17. Each card represents a
month, beginning with January, and contains PSUNS(12), RHD(12), RA(12),
WIND(12), and MMAT(12) in sequence for the month according to FORMAT(2X,F2.2,
F2.0, F4.2, F3.1, F3.1). The number of the month that a particular card
represents is printed in the 2X skipped columns at the beginning of each card.
The remaining card nos. 18-20 are IBM control cards that identify the climatic
data on magnetic tape.
OUTPUT ANALYSIS
Appendix B includes a printout of results for the 25-year standard run at
Belleville, Kansas, for both irrigation and evaporation. The first page of
output is a summary of input parameters. The simulation is for the years
1949-1973. The P25 event is 5.10 inches (CRITICAL EVENT), the feedlot area is
40 acres, and the disposal area is 80 acres with a corn as the irrigated crop.
The pond dimensions give a maximum pond volume of 202.33 acre-inches, which is
57 percent of the 100 percent size as reported in the main text. The purpose
of using the small volume is to demonstrate the type of output generated when
there is less than 100 percent control.
The irrigation management (PAVLU) scheme is intensive. Irrigation will
occur whenever all other disposal criteria are met and the upper zone avail-
able soil moisture is less than 0.90 of field capacity. The rate of applica-
tion is 0.50 inches per day over the disposal area, which is equivalent to a
disposal volume of 40 acre-inches/day.
The annual summary for 1949 on the following page is a three-level
summary of the water budget for the year. The first level is a summary of the
storage facility budget. Inflows are precipitation over a 3.14 acre receiving
area (stated as equivalent precipitation over an 80-acre disposal area) and
50
-------
Card No.
00
CD
U>
•
n
OQ
n>
co
I
n>
o
7?
i-b
o
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
BELLEVILLE? KANSAS - 140682
r g ALPHA CRDP=3 ? DURM=1.0? GRDM=1.£5? PAVLU=0.9? SDIL=5?RCRDF-0.£3 ? E= 0.75 ? EPRIM=0.5?
r BPl lNTA=ii. 62. BPl lHTB=n. '"'39? PCVMAX=0. 05? DGSB=1 ? DbSE=25? MbSB=5? MGSE=1 0> S£HB
• kBETA LT AR.EA=40.0? DSAREA= 80.0,L=570.0? U=190.0? S=3.0? YSTART=1949? YEHD=1973?
r NSTART=1?HMAX= 9.Q»INDST=068£? STDRM=5.1? DSRATE=0.5? &EHD
16078 611 77281
r 26078 840 81329
• 463771394 98540
' 565771590 86632
' 672791669 80739
' 779761630 71800
' 876791432 69785
' 972781226 77695
'107078 939 76577
'116478 680 78421
125879 560 75318
t'VGD.FT01F001 DB UHIT=TAPE9. VDL=SER=995401 ?LABEL=-:i5?SL? ? IH>?
// DISF-SHR? DCB^(DEH=£? LRECL=320? BLKSIZE=320? RECFM=FB> ?
'/.'- DSH=BELVILLE. KAHS. DATA. VR49-73
ll 1 ) 4 i » I > H~iT M 1} 17 H i IJM^ ! » X i i • II I I 3H1 H i< lilt 1IIJ.VHII jj''j'»jj*jj 17'^-/t// /.•fly x*"*/ "A J's i\M ml JJil''I'IJi1
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ;| 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 M 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 '.' 4 4 4 4 4 4 * H 4 4 4 4 4 4 t 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 |$\|\ C\^'4w:^/:^ /W^/II 44444444
I t ) 4 5 C / I > ID II \1 II H IS II H II II !0 71 » 13 It n » i> 21 H 3d 11 J» ,1 i« )5;t37 J3H40 41 VJV ]?' V'1'f'*! '>'~~fty'/,'~-/?l ""'»*""""
55555555555 5 ' 5 5 5 :u 5 5 5 55555555555555555555555555555 5\fe>X^'0!uW^'':^'t^S/>/5 55555555
%\ r*v^.VlV 1^%'^•-'•/
6666G66GGG!^G66GCG666G6B6666C666fiBG6E(i66GG666BC6G6BGGB6 N^^^^v^;^/ 6 6 fi G 6 6 6 6 6 6
imi nnnm mm mm nm iiiiUTiinnn imimnm
mmimnn
^K/\HS
! 9 9 99 99999393999 [1 9999 9 9999 99 9 9 99^9 ^999999998999999999:1999999999399999999999 9999 9 9
I • j j 4 s i ; i « "i r i? :i i> >\ •! ,) ii iv 10 ;• tl n ?<:»« ji ?i n ;o n i) j) ;> is A )i). » s.'to n n ki t» «s it «i <« I* « n i; -'i '•> ". i :|"- •) i:
-------
feedlot runoff, while outflows include disposal volume, surface evaporation
and overflow discharge. The last column is the change in the volume of runoff
stored in the facility over the month or year. Since all values are in inches
over the disposal area of 80 acres, the actual annual precipitation input on
the pond receiving area is 1.26 inches x 80/3.14 =32.0 inches, which corres-
ponds to the published total precipitation at Belleville, in 1949. The annual
balance indicates that all moisture has been accounted for, since 1.26 +
5.63 - 5.96 - 0.90 =* 0.03.
The second level is the moisture budget on the disposal area. The irri-
gation input should match the storage pond disposal volume. The outputs are
interception (which is really an evapotranspiration loss), surface runoff
(runoff curve numbers applied to precipitation plus irrigation), percolation,
which is the quantity of water dropping out below the root zone, and actual
evapotranspiration (AET). The CHANGE IN SM is the change in total soil
moisture for the month or year. In this case INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW
STORAGE = CHANGE IN SM.
Snow is generally a small factor in Kansas. The amount of moisture in
the snow pack is monitored for the season. The amount in storage at the end
of the year and the change in storage during the year are printed below the
monthly accounting. If there is an increase in snow storage, the total
increase should be deducted from the precipitation for the year as that amount
did not enter into the budget. Similarly a decrease in snow storage should be
added to precipitation when previously stored snow entered the budget during
the year. In this case: 32.02 + 5.96 -7.62 - 3.82 - 27.29 - 0.08 = -0.83.
The operating characteristics for the year are tabulated below the month-
ly accounts. There were no disposal pond overflows (DISCHARGE = 0.0) so the
percent of wastewater controlled is 100.00. There were 151 potential disposal
days, but disposal water was available on only 17 days.
The percent of pond volume required is 51.80 in 1949. In 1951, 58, 61,
62 71, and 73 the pond discharged by overflow. The date and volume of each
discharge is tabulated at the top of the annual summary sheet for each year
that discharge occurs. In 1958 and 61 the critical event, P25, was exceeded
at Belleville. The data and magnitude of these events are also recorded above
the annual summary. In both cases a pond discharge occurs on the same date.
It should be noted, however, that the total runoff control with this small
pond is approximately 98 percent, and that the P25 volume (204 ac-in.) is
nearly equal to actual pond volume of 202.33 ac-in. This concurs with the
general conclusion that the P25 volume results in roughly 98 percent volume
control.
Following the annual summary for the last year in the simulation, a run
summary is printed. This summary includes a repeat of the input table and
other meteorological, pond operation, and disposal area averages needed for
interpretation. These are self explanatory.
The evaporation run output follows the irrigation output. The input data
is identical to the previously discussed irrigation example, except that the
irrigation management, PAVLU, is 0.0. The pond volume is much larger than
52
-------
that required when irrigation disposal is utilized. This run resulted in 100
percent control, so that the pond is slightly too large. In 1973, 99.39
percent of the pond volume was utilized, so that the direct receiving area
for precipitation (47.92 acres) was used as the surface area required for
100 percent control by evaporation.
REFERENCES (APPENDIX A)
1. Water Information Center, Inc. Climates of the States. Volumes 1 and 2,
Port Washington, N.Y. , 1974. 975 p.
2. Kohler, M. A., et al. Evaporation Maps for the United States. U.S.
Weather Bureau Technical Paper 37, Washington, D.C., 1959.
3. National Engineering Handbook. Hydrology. Section 4, U.S. Soil Con-
servation Service, Washington, D.C., 1972.
4. Technical Release No. 21. Irrigation Water Requirements. Engineering
Division, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, April 1967.
5. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Kansas Irrigation Guide Irrigation
Planners Handbook. Salina, Kansas, 1975 and 1962.
6. Gray, D. M. Principles of Hydrology. Water Information Center, Inc.,
Port Washington, N.Y., 1973.
7. U.S. Department of Commerce. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States. Technical Paper No. 40, Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C., 1963.
61 p.
8. Whiting, D. M. Use of Climatic Data in Estimating Storage Days for
Soils Treatment Systems. EPA-600/2-76-250, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Ada, OK, Nov. 1976. 90 p.
53
-------
APPENDIX B
1. FROMKSU Source Code.
2. Example of 25-year simulation of
irrigation disposal at Belleville,
Kansas.
3. Example of 25-year simulation of
evaporation disposal at Belleville,
Kansas.
54
-------
Ln
//RCL03790 JOB IXXXXX.XXXXXXXX,,3,,1602),'ZOVNE*,TIME-C,451
**»TAPE9
//RUN EXEC FORTGCLG
//FORT.SYSIN 00 *
KSUOOJI REGION SIZE - 256K, MAXIMUM CORE USED -
KSU004I EXCP CCUNT - UR 347 968, UR 381
KSU001I STEP 1 FORT EXECUTION TIME *
KSUOOJI REGION SIZE - 256K. MAXIMUM CORE USED -
KSU0041 EXCP COUNT - DA 250 85, DA 253
KSU004I EXCP COUNT - DA 252 11, DUMMY
KSU0011 STEP 2 LKEO EXECUTION TIME *
//GO.SYSIN DO *
//GO.FTOIFOOI 00 UNI T«T APE9, VOL = SER*9
-------
c
c
c
c
c
0001
0002
0003
0004
OC05
0006
0007
0008
0009
0010
0011
0012
0013
0014
0015
O016
001T
0018
0019
OOZO
0021
0022
0023
0024
0025
0026
0027
0028
002V
0030
0031
0032
OO33
0034
0033
00)6
0097
003*
C
C
c
c
FROM KSU - FEEOLOT RUNOFF MU0EL KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY -
JOINTLY PROGRAMMED BY THE CIVIL AND AGRICULTURAL ENGG. OEPT.
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
1977
INTEGER CROP.OAY, FROZE, SOIL, ST I NO, T, YEAR, YEARS, YENO.YST ART
REAL IRRVOL,IRKSUM
INTEGER OGSB.OliSC.PREVYR
REAL IA.IAAIJD, I Abl ,KCRUP , KS , LAKEVP, LKfcVPT ,LT ARE A, L , N, M
REAL KAXVUL.MMATI 12 I ,MI<
DIMENSION AMONTH1 I J ) , AVLF CL I 1 21 ,AVLFCU( 1 2 I > C ( 121 t FCLI 12 ) fFCUU2I
DIMENSION CNSK H,CNS3(7>,CNS5(/}, CNS1-M71
DIMENSION KCROPI 7, 12) ,NDIM 12>,PUACCT<13,8) ,PREC(3ll.PSUNSI12)
DIMENSION PWPL<:( 12) ,PUPUZ (12) ,KA( 1LU/Z.O,.?.9,,?.0,.e.2,Z.O,.l.7, 1.6,l.6,l.4,l.3,0.8,0.7/
DATA PWPLlib.7,6.5,8.5,4.5,7.2,4.9,7.1,3.5,4.0,2.9,2.9,1.8/
DATA SMSATU/5.8,6.2,5. 7 , 5 . 7 ,5 .7 ,5.5 ,5 .4 , 5 .'» , 5 . 3 ,5 .2 ,4 .8 , 4.8/
DATA SMSATL/11.8,11.5,16.3,8.2,15.8,10.4,15.4,7.7,13.9,13.2,13.2,
1 12.9/
DATA U/0.47.0.47,0.39,0.39,0.3V,0.39,0.35,0.35,0.31,0.31,0.28,
1 0.24/
DATA AtT,AeTLZ,AETUZI02,DISVOL,DPERC,EO,EXCESS,IA,lAACO,IAET,M,HA,
I MR,PACK,PACKPY,POVOL,PERC,PUNVOL,P1,P2,P3,SNOHLT,TOPERC,T1ME,
2 TPEVAP.TRNCF.T1,T2,EVPSMR/30*0.0/
DATA CROP,DAY,I DAY, IYRC,MM,PREVYR,SO IL,T/8*0/
DATA POT,SMLZ.SMMAXL,SMUZ/37.5,9.35,2.2,3.25/
DATA ORY,PEAK,PREVOS,TPREC,WET/5*0.0/
DATA AVAILL,AVAILU,CM,OSCVOL,OSOAYS,DSPERC,DSRNFF,EVAPLK,H,IRRSUM,
1 $NOH,MASTWW/12»0.0/
NAME LI ST/ALPHA/BRUriT A, BRUNT B. CROP, OGS6.0GSE, DORM, E, GROW, MGSB,
»MGSE,PAVLU,PCVMAX,KCRCP,SOIL,EPRIH
NAMELIST/BETA/DSAREA,DSRATE,HMAX,INDST,I,LTAREA.MSTAHT,S,STORM,W,
*VENO,YSTART
•*»»* INPUTS **•»*
READ(5,20) NAME,OF,CJTY,AND,STATE
20 FORMATC20X.5A4)
C*»* READ THE tOI,PCNO AND DISPOSAL PAKANETC8S
-------
0039
0040
0041
0042
00*3
0045
0046
0047
0048
OC49
0050
0051
0052
0053
0054
0055
0056
0057
0058
0059
0060
0061
0062
0063
0064
006$
0066
0067
0068
0069
0070
0071
0072
0073
0074
0075
0076
REA015.BETA)
C*»* READ 1HE MONTHLY AVERAGE METEOROLOGICAL DATA
RE AD I 5, 60 I (PSUNSUJ.RHOI I ) , RA( 1 1 , W I NDI I ) ,MMAT 1 1 I .1-1,121
60 FORMAT(2X,FZ.Z,FZ.O,F4.2,F3.1.F3.U
00 80 K=l,7
RCNI 1,K)«CNSHK)
RCNI2.KMCNS1IK)
RCNt 3,K)=CNS3(K)
RCNI4,K)=CNS3(Kl
RCNI 5,K)=CNS5(K)
RCN(6,K)=CNS5(K)
RCN17,K)=CNS5|K)
RCNI 8,K)*CNS5IK)
RCNI 10,K)=CNS5IKI
RCNI U.KMCNSSIK)
80 RCM(12,K)*CNS12(K)
CALL CROPCOtCROP,MGSB,l)GSB,MGSE,DGSE,KCROP,NDIM,MMATI
C
C*»*
C*»*
C**»
Al.A2.A3, A4.ANO A5 ARE COEFFICIENTS USED IN VOLUHE ROUTINE
A1=L*W
A2=S*IL»W)
A3*4./3.*S**2
A4=2.*A2
A5=4.*S**2
VCLMAX IS THE MAXIMUM VOLUME HELO OY THE STORAGE FACILITY
VCLMAX=(Al*HHAX»A2*HMAX**Z+A3*HMAX**j)/3630.
PSAREA IS THE DIRECT RECEIVING AREA OF THE FACILITY
PS AREA*! (W*2.*S*HMAX)*IL»2. *S*HHAXI 1/43560.
YEARS*YENO-YSTARTtl
WRITE 16, 100)NAMC,OF,CITY, ANO,STATE,YSTAkT,YENl),STCRM,LTAREA,L,H,S,
*HMAX,VOL«AX,PSAREA,DSAREA,KPOPICROPI,SOIL,OSRATE,PAVLU
100 FURMATI • I', IOX///////////10X,'STATION:1 ,3X,5A4, IUX, I4,1 TO ',14,
1////10X,'CRITICAL EVENT- ',F4.2,' INCHtS'////tCX,'PEEOLOT AREA-',F
26.2,' ACRES' ////10X, • PUNU VARIABLES: V/25X, • I A) UASE DIMENSION—',
3F7.2,' FEET BY '.F7.2,' FEET*//Z5X,'I 0 I SIDE SLCPE— RUN: RISE
4 « ',F3.1,' : IV/ZSX.MC) MAXIMUM DEPTH— ',F5.Z,' FEET'//25X,
5'ID) MAXIMUM POND VOLUME— ',F9.2,' ACRE-INCHtS•//25X,'IEI DIRECT
6 RECEIVING AREA IFOR PRECIPITATION) — ',F8.2,' ACRES'////1 OX,
7'OISPCSAL AREA VARI ABLES : V/25X , • I A) DISPOSAL AREA— '.F6.2,
8" ACRESV/25X, • IB) CROP— ' .2A8//25X, • I C) SOIL TYPE— ',13,
tSCS) SOIL TYPE'//25X,«ID) DISPOSAL RATE— '.F5.2,
INCHES/DAY ON DISPOSAL OAYS'//25X,'I E ) IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT —
IRRIGATION BELOW ',F5.2,' AVAILABLE MOISTURE')
9«
11'
12
***** ENTER YEARLY LCOP *****
00 1500 NY=1,YEARS
DC 140 1-1,13
DO 120 J-1,8
POACCU I, J)«0.0
120 SMACCTd ,J)«0.0
140 CONTINUE
IDISOA'0.0
MAXVOL'0.0
LKEVPT»0.0
YRPET-0.0
-------
in
00
0077
0078
0079
0080
0081
0082
0083
0084
0085
0086
0087
0088
0089
0090
0091
0092
0093
0094
0095
0096
0097
0098
0099
0100
0101
0102
0103
0104
0105
0106
0107
0108
0109
SMREVP=-0.0
IFINY.GT.l) MSTART'l
HRITE(6,160)
160 FORMAT!•!',46X,****** ANNUAL SUMMARY «****«)
***** ENTER MONTHLY LOOP *****
00 1286 NH=HSTART,12
180 READIl,200,END*1520l KAN,STINO,YEAR.MONTM,(PRECII),I«1,31),
KTMAXU I,1=1,31),ITMIN(l),1*1,31)
200 FORMATU2,I4,2I2,31F4.2,62F3.0)
1FISTINO.NE.INOST) CO TO 130
IFtYEAR.LT.YSTART-1900) GO TO 180
IFIYEAR.GT.YENO-1900) CO TO 1520
IFIHONTH.LT.HSTART.AND.YEAR.EQ.YSTART-t9001 GO TO 180
IFINM.NE.MONTH) GO TO 1490
OSOAY=0
NOIM(2)°28
IFtNM.E0.2.ANO.TMAX(29).LT.900) NOIMI2)*29
NDAYS-NOIMINM)
***** ENTER DAILY LOOP *****
DC 1240 NO-l.NOAYS
C
C***
THE FOLLOW ING STATEMENTS CORRECT FOR MISSING DATA ON INPUT TAPE
IF(TMAX(NO).GT.250.0) TMAXINU)= POT»100.0
IF(TMIN(ND).GT.250.0) TMINI NO) = POT*100.0
IF(PRECINO).GT.99.97) PRECINO)'0.0
C*** THE FOLLOWING CARD EVALUATES HHETHEK THE 24 HOUR DESIGN STORM
C*** HAS BEEN EXCEEDED.
IFIPREC(ND).GE.STURM/1.14) WRITEI6.220) NM,NO,YEAR,PRECINO)
220 FORMATI20X,l2t•/•tI2,'/',12,' CRITICAL EVENT EXCEEDED ',
12X.FlO.2t' INCH STORM •)
C
C *** CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPI RAT ION OY MEANS OF
C PENMAN COMBINATION EQUATION ***
C
IURCROP
C*** THE FOLLOWING CARD CHECKS FOR SNOW COVER
IF(PACK.GT.O.l) R=0.70
C**» TAVG IS THE AVERAGE DAILY AIR TEMPERATURE, DEGREE FAHRENHEIT
TAVG(NO)»ITMAX1/2.0-100.0
C*** CONVERT AVG. DAILY TEMPERATURE TO ABSOLUTE, DECREES KELVIN
CENTMX-ITMAXINOI-132.01*100.0/180.0
CENTMN*(TMIN(NU)-132.0)*IOO.O/1BO.O
CENT«ICENTMX«CfNTMN)/2.0
ABST-CENT«273.I6
C**» ES IS THE DAILY CALCULATED SATURATED VAPCR PRESSURE, IN MILLIBAR
tSI«33.9*U0.00738*CeNTHX«0.8072l**8-0. 000019»A8S( 1.8»CENTMXf 481
1 t-0.00136)
ES2-33.9*((0.00738*CENTMN»0.80/2)**8-0. 000019*ABSU.8»CENTMN»48)
1 »0.00136)
ES-(ESI»ES2)/2.0
IF(ES.LE.O.O) ES-0.0
C*** ESA IS THE DEM POIHT VAPOR FtfSSUKC, IN MIIII0MS
-------
Ul
VO
0110
0111
0112
0119
0115
0116
0117
0118
0119
0120
0121
0122
0123
0124
0125
0126
0127
0128
0129
0130
0131
0132
0133
0134
013?
0136
0137
0138
0139
0140
0141
0142
0143
0144
0145
0146
0147
0148
0149
0150
0151
0152
0153
ESA-ES«RHD(NM)/100.0
C*** RN IS THE CALCULATED DAILY NET RADUTIUN, IN MK CF WATER
RN=( 1-RI*RMNN>*(0.22»0.54*PSUNS( N.'D 1-2 .010 E-09*ABST**4* ( 0.98*
11l.O-(BRUNTA»BRUN1B*SQRT(ESA))))*(0.I»0.9*9 SUNS(MM)I
IF(RN.LT.O.O) RN'0.0
C»»* WINDO IS THE MONTHLY AVERAGE HINDRUN, MILES/DAY AT 2 METERS
C*** HEIGHT
MNOD«(HIND(NM)*24)*0.555
C*** EA IS THE CONVECTIVE LOSSESi MM MATER
EA=0.26*(E*0.01*WINDO)*IES-ESAI
EALAKE=0.26*(EPRIM>0.01*WINOOI*IES-ESAI
1FITAVGIND)) 240,240,260
240 OELTA=0.0
GO TO 280
260 OELTA=0.039*TAVGINO)**0.673
280 GAMHA=1-DELTA
C*** PET IS THE CALCULATED DAILY POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES
PET=I(OELTA«KN)»(GAMMA*EA))/25.4
CALCUATE LAKE AND DARE SOIL EVAPORATION
RNSOIL=RN*(I 1.0-0.201/1 l.O-RI)
RNLAKt=RN*(I 1.0-0.05 I/I 1.0-R))
PETBS^I (UELTA*P.NSUIL)MGAMMA«EA)l/25.4
LAKEVP-I(DELTA*RNLAKE)»IGAMHA»EALAKE)1/25.4
POT=TAVG(NDI
IFJTAVGINDJ.LT.20.01 PET=0.0
IF(TAVG(NO).LT.20.0) PETBS^O.O
IFITAVGINU).LT.20.0) LAKEVP-0.0
YRPET=YRPET*PET
1AAOO=IAET-PET
IFIKCROPICKOP.NM).EQ.0.0) IAADD»IAET-PETBS
IFllAADD.GT.O.t) lAADD'O.t
IFUAADO.IT.O.OI IAAOD'0.0
C
C
C
C
C
»**
CALCULATION OF MOISTURE AOOEO TO DISPOSAL AREA DUE TO
SNOWMELT ON THE AREA ***
300
320
340
360
C***
380
SNOVAP*0.0
M=0.0
PRECIP*PRECIND)
WATER*PRECIP
IF(PACK.GT.O.l) SNOVAP»PET
PACK«PACK-SNOVAP
IFl SNOVAP.GT.0.0) PET*0.0
IF (TAVGI NDI- 32 ) 300.300.320
IFIPRECIP) 420,420,340
IF(PACK) 460,460,360
PACK»PACK»PRECIP
WATER-0.0
GO TO 460
MA IS SNOWMELT DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
MA = 0. 05* (TAVGI NO 1-34)
IF (MA. LT. 0.0) HA-0.0
IF(PACK-MAI 400,400,380
MR IS SNOMMELT DUE TO RAIN
MR°(PREC!P*(TAVG(NDI-32)>/144
IF(PACK-M) 400.420,420
-------
0154
0155
0196
0157
0158
0159
0160
0161
0162
0163
0164
O165
0166
0167
0163
0169
0170
0171
0172
0173
0174
0175
0176
0177
0178
0179
0180
0181
0182
0183
0184
0185
0186
0187
0188
0189
0190
0191
0192
0193
0194
0195
0196
400 M*PACK
PACK=0.0
CO TO 440
420 PACK=PACK-M
440 WATER=M*PRECIP
C
C
C
C
C
*** EVALUATION OF SOIL MOISTURE AND CALCULATION OF ACTUAL
EVAPOTRANSPIRAT ION FROM OISPCSAL AREA ***
460 RAIN=HATER»(OISVOL/DSAREA)
IF(DISVOL.GT.O.O.AND.PRF.C IP.LT.0.41 GO TO 600
IF(RAIN.LE.O.O) GO TO 580
C*»« CALCULATE SURFACE RUNOFF VOLUME BY SCS METHOD
IF1KCROPICROP.NM).LE.0.0) GO TO 520
IFtSMUZ.LT. (PHPumOIL) »0 .5 »AVLFCU < SO IL I ) I GO TO 480
IFISMU£.GT.(PHPUZISOIL)»0.8*AVLFCU(SUIL))) GO TO 500
GO TO 540
C*** MODIFY RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER TO CONDITION I ANECEDENT MOISTURE
480 RCM(SO1L,CRGPI=RCN(SOIL,CROP)»0.39*EXPI0.009*RCNISOIL,CROP>J
GC TO 560
C*** MODIFY KUNOFF CURVE NUMBER TO CONDITION III ANECEOENT MOISTURE
500 RC.M(S01L,CRCP) = RCN(SOIL,CROP)*l.95*EXPl-0.00663*RCNIS01L.CROP))
GO TC 560
520 IF(SMUZ.LT.0.6*FCU(SUID) GO TO 480
IF(SMU/.GT.0.9*FCU(SOILIJ GO TO 500
540 RCMISOIL,CROP)=RCN(SOIL,CROP)
560 S1=1000.0/RCMISOIL,CROP I-10.0
ER=RAIN-0.2*SI
IF(ER.LT.O.O) GO TO 600
RNCF=ER**2/(RAIN»0.8«SI)
GO TO 620
C*»* EVALUATE INTERCEPTION STORAGE
580 RNUF=0.0
IA=0.0
GO TO 640
600 RNOF-0.0
620 IA=0.1
IF! IA.GT.P.AIN) IA*RAIN
IF I t lAHAACDI .GE.O. 1 ) IA=0. 1-IAAOO
C*** EVALUATE PERCOLATION INTO UPPER ZCNE
640 PERC=RAIN-RNOF-1A
UZEVAP=0.0
C*** CALCULATE PRESENT STORAGE AVAILABLE IN UPPER ZCNE
SHMAXU=0.9»SMSATU(SOILI-SMUZ
C*»* EVALUATE WATER CASCADED TO LOMER ZONE FOR STORAGE
PERCL'PERC-SMMAXU
IF1PERC.GT.SMMAXUI PERC=SMMAXU
IF(PERCL.LT.O.O) PERCL-0.0
IF (SMUZ.GT.FCUISOIL)) GO TO £60
EXCESS'0.0
GO TO 680
C*** EVALUATE GRAVITATIONAL HATER IN UPPER ZONE
66G EXCESS-SMUZ-FCU1SOHI
C*»* IF THE CROP IS DORMANT OR THE SOIL LIES FALLOW, SOIL
C*** EVAPORATION IS EVALUATED
680 IFIKCROPCCROP.NMI.LE.O.OI GC TO 860
T«0.0
-------
C*** HCOIFY PET BY THE PLANT CONSUMPTIVE USE COEFFICIENT
0197 AET=KCRCP(tROP,NM)*rET
0198 ir(PET.LE.IAET) A£T=0.0
C*** CHECK WHETHER SOIL HUISTURE LIMITS AET FROM THE UPPER ZONE
0199 IF (SMUZ-t 0.3*1 AVLFCUISOIL I ) tP kPUZ ( SO I L) I ) 700,700,760
C*** CALCUATE AET FRCM THE UPPER ZONE WHEN LIMITED BY SOIL MOISTURE
02OO 70O AVAILU^SMUZ-PWPUZISOIL)
0201 IFIAVAILU.LE.O.OI AVAILU=0.0
0202 AETUZ=0.7*AET*(AVAILU/(0.3*AVLFCUI SO IL)I I
C*** EVALUATE AVAILABLE WATER IN THE LOWER /ONE
0203 AVAILL=SHLZ-PWPLZ
-------
N5
02*3
0244
0245
0246
0247
0248
0249
02SO
0251
0252
0253
0254
0255
0256
0257
0258
0259
0260
0261
0262
0263
0264
0265
0266
0267
0268
0269
0270
0271
0272
027)
0274
920
940
960
970
C***
C
C
C
C
C*»*
C**«
C**»
C***
C**«
C*«*
c***
C***
c***
c*»*
c***
c»**
c***
980
C
C
C***
1000
c
c
c
c
c«»*
UZEVAP=0.0
SMUZ=SMUZ-UZEVAP*PERC-EXCESS
IF
-------
OJ
0275
0276
0277
0278
0279
0280
0281
0282
0283
0284
0285
0286
0287
0288
0289
0290
0291
0292
0293
0294
0295
0296
0297
0298
0299
0300
0301
0302
0303
0304
0305
0306
0307
0308
0309
0310
Pl = P2
P2-P3
P3=PRECIP
IF ( SNOW. GT. 0.0. AND. FROZE. EQ. 01 GO TO 1020
IF(PRECIP.IE.O.O) GO TO 1100
IF (FROZE. EC. 1) GO TO 1080
IFIAM.LE.0.5.ANO.PRECIP.LE.0.5) GO TO 1100
C**» CALCULATE' fEEOLOT RUNOFF USING 3 DAY ANTECEDENT MOISTURE
C*»* CONDITIONS AND A MODIFICATION OF THE SCS METHOD
1020 AM1=AH»PRECIP
PRESIP=PRECIP»SNOH
RC=97.0
IF (MONTH. LT.
-------
0311
0312
0313
0314
0315
0316
0317
0318
0319
0320
0321
0322
0323
0324
0325
0326
0327
0328
0329
0330
0331
0332
0333
033*
03J5
0336
0337
0338
0339
0340
0341
0342
0343
0344
0345
0346
0347
0940
1160 IF IH.GT.HMAX) H-HMAX
B2-IW»2.*S*H)*(L*2.*S*HI
IF(FROZE.EQ.l) LAKEVP=0.0
LKEVPT = LKl VPT«LAKEVP
IFINM.GE.5.AND.NK.LE.IO) SUREVP'SNREVP*LAKEVP
C*** SEVAP IS THE VOLUME OF WATER EXTRACTED FROM THE STORAGE FACILITY
C*** BY FREE SURFACE EVAPORATION.
SEVAP*32*(LAKEVP/12)
1F({S EVAP/3630).GT.PONVUL) SE VAP-PONVGL *3630
PONVGL=PGNVCL-|SEVAP/3630I
IF(PUNVUL.LE.O.O) PONVOL=0.0
C
THE VOLUMES OF CALCULATED RUNOFF FROM THE FEEOLOT AND
PRECIPITATION FALLING ON THE FACILITY ARE ADDED TO THE VOLUME OF
WANiR IN THE STORAGE FAC I L I TY (ACRE-IN) .
PONVOL=PONVOL*(RUNOFF*LTAREA(+1PRECIP*PSAREA)
THE VOLUME OF WATER REMAINING AT THE END OF THE DAY IS EXPRESSED
IN ACRE-IN.
C***
C***
C
C***
c*«*
C
C
C***
C***
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DETERMINE WHETHER THE STORAGE FACILITY
HAS OVERFLOWED AND IF SO, THE QUANTITY DISCHARGED
OSCHRG-0.0
IF(PONVCL-VOLMAX) 1220,1220,1180
1180 DSCHRG^PCNVOL-VOLMAX
DSCVGL=DSCVOL»DSCHRG
WHITE(6,1200) NM,NO,YEAR,DSCHRG
1200 FORHATI20X, I2,1/' ,12,V , 12,• - DISCHARGE OF«,F10.2,' ACRE-IN*)
IFIOSCHRG.GE.PEAK) PEAK^OSCHRG
IFIYEAR.GT.PREVYR.OR.CM.LT.1.0) HM=MM»1
PREVYR=YEAR
1220 SMACCHMM.2I
SMACCTINM.3I
SMACCTINM.4)
SMACCT1NM,5)
SMACCTINM.6)
SMACCTINM,7)
SMACCTINM.8)
SMPD=SM
POACCTINN.3)
PUACCT(NM,6)
PD«CCT(NM,7)
PDACCTINM.8I
PDVOL=PONVOL
IFIPONVUL.GT
1240 CONTINUE
=SMACCT(NM,2)*PRECIP
= SMACCTINH,3 I 40 ISVOL/OSAREA
=SMACCT(NM,4)«IA
=SMACCT(NM,5)«RNOF
=SMACCT(NM,6)«DPERC
= SMACCT(NM,M *AETUZ*AETLZ*SNCVAP
=SMACCT(NM,8)«SH-SMPO
= POACCUNM,3) *RUNQFF*LTAREA/OSAREA
-POACCTINM,6)«SEVAP/(3630»OSAREA)
«POACCT«NM,7)+OSCHRG/DSAREA
^POACCKNM, 8) «iPONVOL-PDVCL)/OSARE*
.MAXVOL) HAXVCL'PONVOL
C
C
C
C
*•*•* EXIT DAILY LOOP •***•
SMACCT(N«,1)-AMOMTH(NH)
POACCT(NN,1)-ANONTHINM)
-------
t_n
0349
0350
0351
0352
0353
0354
0355
0356
0357
0358
0359
0360
0361
0362
0363
0364
0365
0366
0367
0368
0369
0370
0371
0372
0373
0374
0375
0376
0377
0378
0379
0380
0381
0382
0383
0384
038S
POACCT!NM,2I=SMACCTINM,2)*PSAREA/OSAREA
PDACCT!NM,4)=OSDAY
PDACCTINM,5)=SMACCTINM,3)
00 1260 J=2,8
PDACCTI13,J)'POACCTI13,JI»POACCTINM,J)
1260 SMACCTI13,Jl*SMACCT<13,JI*S*ACCTINM,J)
SNAtC.TI 13, l) = AMONTHI 13)
POACCTI13,1I=AMONTHI13)
C
1280 CGNTINUE
C
C ***** EXIT MONTHLY LOOP *****
C
DSNOW=PACK-PACKPY
PACKPY-PACK
PCWW=(IPDACCTI13,2)»PDACCT(13,3>-POACCTI 13,7))/
1 IPDACCTI13,2)»POACCT(13,3)))*100.
WASTWW=WASIKH»PCWW
IRRSUM=IRRSUM*SMACCTI13,3)
DSRNFF^OSRNFF*SMACCTI13,5)
DSPE*C=DSPERC*SMACCTI13,6)
OSOAYS=DSOAYS»POACCTI13,4)
TPREC=TPRLC»SMACCT113,2)
IF((YEARM900), EO.YSTART) DRY-SMACCTI13,2)
IF(SMACCTI13,2).GL.WET) WET=SMACCTI13,2)
IF(SMACCTI 13,21.LE.DRY) DRY*SMACCT< 13,2)
WRITE16,13001 YEAR
1300 FORMAT!'0',27X,'WATER ACCOUNT FUR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER
I DISPOSAL AREA1 - 19•,I2//9X,•
3 '/29X, 'INFLOWS', SOX , 'OUT fLCWS ' / 1 7X ,'
t, '.23X,' •/
59X,'MCNTH«,3X,'PRECIPITAT ION",2X,'FEEDLCT RUNOFF',3X,'NO. DISPOSAL
6 DAYS',3X,'DISPOSAL VOL.',2X,•SURFACE EVAP.•,2X,'01SCHARGE',4X,
7'CHANGE IN VOL.')
WRITE 16, 1320 I I (POACCT! I,K),K = 1,8),I=1,M)
1320 FORMAT!I OX,A4,7X,F6.2,8X,F6.2 ,15X,F3.0,12X,F6.Z,IOX,
1 F6.2,7X,Ft.2,9X,F6.2)
HRITE(6,I340I YEAR
1340 FCKMATI'0',35X,'WATER BALANCE (INCHES) IN THE DISPOSAL AREA - 19',
II2/1 OX,'
2 '/32X,
3 'INPUTS', 3flX, 'OUTPUTS'/21X,' — ',3X, '
t, '/9X, 'MONTH' ,
57X,'PRECIPITATION*,4X,'IRRIGATION',3X,•INTERCEPTION*,2X.'SURFACE R
6UNOFF',3X,'PERCOLATION',8X, 'AET',8X,'CHANGE IN SM'I
WRITE(6,1360) (ISMACCTII,K) ,K = l,8l,I«l,13l
1360 FCRMATI10X.A4,7F15.2)
WRITE(6,1380) PCWW
1380 FORMAT! '0* , IOX,'PERCENT OF V.ASTEWAT ER CCNTROLLED"', F10. 2)
WRITE (6,14001 IOISOA
1400 FORMAT!'O1 , IOX,'POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS'*,14)
WRITEI6,1420) PACK.DSNOW
1420 FORMAT!'0',IOX,'PACK CN DECEMBER 31 «',F5.2,15X,
1'CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-•,F5.2)
WRITEI6.1440)
1440 FORMAT!'0',IOX,•INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE=CHANGE IN
1SOIL MOISTURE')
-------
0386 HAXVOL-MAXVOLMOO.O/VOLMAX
0387 HR1TEI6,1460> MAXVOL
0388 1460 FORMATI'O1 ,10X, 'PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED =',F7.2)
0389 TPEVAP«TPEVAP»YRPET
0390 HRITE(6,1470) YKPET
0391 1470 FORMAtl'O',10X,'ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPCTRANSP1RATION, INCHES -',
1F6.2)
0352 EVAPLK=EVAPLK»LKEVPT
0393 WRITEI6,1480) LKEVPT
0394 1480 FORMATI'O',10X,'ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES «',F6.2)
0395 EVPSMR = EVPSMR»SI".REVP
0396 PCTSMR=ISMREVP/LKEVPT)*100.0
0397 KRITCI6.14B4) SMREVP,PCTSMR
0398 1484 FORMAT!'0',IOX,'MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES »',
1F6.2,' OR ',F4.1,' X OF ANNUAL1)
0399 GO TO 1500
0400 1490 WRITEI6.1740)
0401 IYRC=IYRCH
0402 1500 CONTINUE
C
C ***** EXIT YEARLY LOOP *****
C
0403 1520 CONTINUE
0404 YEARS=YEARS-IYRC
0405 EVAP=EVAPLK/YEARS
0406 AVGPET*TPEVAP/YEARS
0407 SP«LK=EVPSMR/YEARS
0408 PCTLK^I S.XRLK/EVAP»*100.0
0409 IF(MM.EQ.O) MH=l
0410 CMN£W=CM
0411 CCUNT=CM/MM
0412 IF (COUNT-EC.0.01 MM=0
0413 IF(CM.EQ.O.O) CM=YEARS
0414 OSCRG=OSCVOL/CM
0415 CK^CMNEM
0416 CONTKL-WASTWV./YEARS
0417 IRRVCL-1RRSUM/YEARS
0418 RNFFDS'OSRNFF/YEARS
0419 PERCDS'OSPERC/YEARS
0420 OAYSDS-OSOAYS/YEARS
0421 APREC=TPREC/YEARS
0422 RANGE=WET-ORY
0423 WRITE(6,100 I NAME,OF,CITY,AND,STATE,YSTART,YENO,STCR*.LTA»EA.L,W,S.0000
*H.'1AX, VULMAX.PS AREA, OSARE A,KKOPI CROP), SOIL ,L)SRA IE, PA VLU
0424 URITEI6.1540)
0425 1540 FORMAT!////,47X,'***** FINAL SUMMARY •****•I
0426 t
-------
0436 MRITEI6.1626) RANGE,CRY,MET
0437 1626 FURMATt'O' ,25X,'PRECIPITATION RANGE"',F6.2,' INCHES (FROM A LOW
lCF',F6.2f' INCHES TO A HIGH OF ',F6.2,' INCHES)')
04)8 hRITU6,lblO)
04)9 161O FORMAT! '0' t IOX,'SUMMARY OF PONO OPERATIONS')
0440 WRITE(6,1580) MM
0441 158O FORMAT-! 'O1 ,25X, 'NO. OF YEARS HAVING A O I SCH4RGE-',16 I
0442 WRITEI6,16001 COUNT
0443 1600 FORMAT!«0',25X,'AVERAGE NO. OF DISCHARGES / YEAR HAVING A OISCHARG
1E=',F6.2)
0444 WRITE(6,1620) CSCRG
0445 1620 FORMAT!'0',25X.'AVERAGE 0ISCHARGE'1.F6.2tIX,'ACRE-INCHES'I
0446 WR1TEI6.1640) CONTRL
0447 1640 FORMAT!'0',25X,'AVERAGE PERCENT OF NASTEHATER CONTROLLED^'tF6.2>
0448 MRITEI6.1621) OSCVOL
0449 1621 FORMAT!'0',2SX,'TOTAL DISCHARGE VOLUME = • ,F9 .2 .' ACRE-INCHES')
0450 HRITEI6,16221 CM
0451 1622 FORMAT!'0',25X,'TOTAL NO. OF Dl SCHARGES* • ,F«.O I
0452 HR1TEI6, 1623) PEAK
0453 162) FORMAT!'0',25X,'MAXIMUM 0ISCHARGE»',F6.2t' ACRE-INCHES')
0454 V.R1IEI6, 1619)
0455 1619 FCRMATI'0',IOX,'SUMMARY OF DISPOSAL AREA')
0456 WR1TEI6.1660) IRRVOL
0457 1660 FORMAT! '0' ,25X, 'AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPTH CF WASTEMATER APPLIED" fF6.2,
1' INCHES OVER ENTIRE DISPOSAL AREA'I
0458 WRITE(6,1680) KNFFDS
0459 1680 FORMATI'0',25X,-AVERAGE ANNUAL DISPQSAL AREA RUNOFF-•,F6.2.• INCHE
IS'I
0460 kRITE16,1700) PERCOS
0461 1700 FCRMATI'O',25Xt'AVERAGE ANNUAL DISPOSAL AREA PERCOLATION^'iF6.2,'
1 INCHES' )
0462 WRITEI6.1T20) OAYSDS
0463 1720 FCRMATCO',25X,'AVERAGE ANNUAL NO. OF DISPOSAL DAYS-',F6.1)
0464 1740 FORMAT!•0',9X,'WARNING - PROGRAM UNCERGCUG STANDARD FIX-UP AS RES
1ULT OF HISSING BLOCK OF DATA; SKIPPING TO FOLLOWING YEAR')
0465 STOP
0466 END
-------
SUBPROGRAMS CALLED
SYMBOL LOCATION S
FRDNLf 3FC C
EXP 410
co
SCALAR HAP
SYMBOL '
AET
OPERC
IAET
PACKPY
P2
TPEVAP
CROP
PREVYR
SMMAXL
TPREC
DSC VOL
H
OF
K
Al
A3
PSAREA
STORM
NY
YRPET
STIND
NCAYS
CENTMN
ES
WINOO
DELTA
PETBS
RAIN
SMMAXU
FROZE
RC
V
SEVAP
EVAP
CCUNT
PERCOS
LOCATION
474
488
49C
480
4C4
408
4EC
500
514
528
53C
550
564
578
58C
5*0
584
5C8
50C
5FO
604
618
62C
640
654
663
67C
690
6A4
61) 8
6CC
6EO
6F4
708
TIC
730
SYMBOL
AETLZ
EO
M
POVOL
PS
TRNOF
OAY
SOIL
SMUZ
WET
OSOAYS
IRRSUM
CITY
MGSB
L
A4
SMPO
LTAREA
J
SKREVP
YEAR
ND
CENT
ESA
EA
GAMMA
LAKEVP
SI
PERCL
PCVMAX
GROW
HAPRX
OSCHRG
AVGPET
CSCRG
DAYSOS
LOCATION
478
48C
4AO
4B4
4C8
40C
4FO
504
518
52C
540
554
568
57C
590
5A4
5B8
5CC
5EO
5F4
608
61C
630
644
658
66C
680
694
6A8
6BC
600
6E4
6F8
70C
720
734
SYMBOL
AETUZ
EXCESS
MA
PERC
SNOMLT
Tl
ICAY
T
DRY
AVAILL
DSPERC
SNOW
A NO
OGSB
W
AS
YEARS
OSAREA
IOISDA
MSTART
MONTH
R
ABST
RN
E
PET
SNOVAP
ER
SM
AM
DORM
VC
OSNOH
SHRLK
CONTRL
APREC
LOCAT ION
47C
490
4A4
4B8
4CC
4EO
4F4
508
51C
530
544
558
56C
580
594
5A8
5UC
500
5C4
5F8
60 C
tzo
634
648
65C
670
ea4
698
6AC
6CO
604
6E8
6FC
710
724
738
SYMBOL
B2
IA
MR
PONVOL
TUt'ERC
T2
IYKC
POT
PEAK
AVAILU
OSrtNFF
WASTWH
STATE
MGSE
A2
VOL MAX
YENO
OSKATE
MAX VOL
NM
INOST
RCKOP
ESI
BRUNTA
EALAKE
RNSOIL
PRECIP
RKUF
THAWED
AMI
CS
ov
PCWW
PCTLK
1HRVCL
RANGE
LOCAT ION
480
494
4A8
43C
400
4E4
4F8
50C
520
534
548
55C
570
584
598
SAC
SCO
504
5E8
5FC
610
624
638
64 C
660
674
638
69 C
600
6C4
608
6EC
700
714
728
73C
SYMBOL
OISVOL
IAAOO
PACK
PI
T IME
EVPSMR
MM
SHLJ
PREVOS
CM
EVAPLK
NAME
I
OGSE
S
HMAX
YSTART
PAVLU
LKEVPT
KAN
DSDAY
CENTMX
ES2
DKUNTB
EPRIM
RNLAKE
WATER
UZEVAP
FREEZE
PRESIP
RUNOFF
DVOH
PCTSMR
CMNEW
KNFFOS
LOCAT ION
484
498
4AC
4CO
404
4E8
4FC
510
524
538
54C
560
574
588
59C
500
SC4
5C8
sec
600
614
628
63C
650
664
678
68C
640
6B4
6CB
6CC
6FO
704
718
72C
ARRAY MAP
SYMBOL
MMAT
FCL
CNS12
PSUNS
RCN
TAVG
(CROP
LOCATION
740
834
8E8
CAO
E60
1230
1408
SYMBOL
AMUNTH
FCU
KCROP
PWPLZ
RHO
TMAX
LOCAT ION
770
864
904
COO
1000
12 AC
SYMBOL
AVLFCL
CNSl
NOIM
PWPUZ
SHACCT
THIN
LOCAT ION
7A4
894
A54
000
1030
1328
SYrtBOL
AVLFCU
CNS3
POACCT
RA
SMSATL
U
LOCATION
704
81)0
A84
030
1100
13A4
SYMBOL
C
CNS5
PREC
RCN
SMSATU
WIND
LOCATION
804
8CC
C24
060
1200
1304
-------
NAMELIST MAP
SYMBOL LOCATION
BETA 1574
SYMBOL
LCCATION
SYMBOL
LOCAT ION
SYMBOL
LCCATION
FORMAT STATEMENT HAP
SYMBOL
20
220
1360
1460
1550
1626
1640
1460
LOCATION
1640
1933
1014
1DF6
1F05
201F
213C
2213
SYMBOL
60
1200
1380
1470
1560
1610
1621
1680
LOCAT ION
1648
1975
101F
1E2B
IF24
20B1
2171
2260
SYMBOL
100
1300
1400
1480
1570
1580
1622
1700
LOCATION
1659
19A5
1C4C
1E67
IF59
2CA4
21A2
22A6
SYMBOL
160
1320
1420
1434
1624
1600
1623
1720
LOCATION
18FC
1859
106F
1F97
IFAC
20CF
21C6
22E4
SYMBOL
200
1340
1440
1540
1625
1620
1619
1740
LCCAT ION
191F
1BOZ
10AE
IEE2
1FCE
2 I OF
21F2
2314
•OPTIONS IN EFFECT* ID,EBCDIC,SOURCE,NOLIST.NODECKtLOAD,NAP
•OPTIONS IN EFFECT* NAME * MAIN > LINECNT » 60
•STATISTICS* SOURCE STATEMENTS * 466.PROGRAM SIZE -
•STATISTICS* NO DIAGNOSTICS GENERATED
19378
VO
-------
0001
0002
000)
0004
OOOS
0006
0007
0008
0009
0010
0011
0012
0013
0014
0015
SUBROUTINE CRUPCC (CROP,MGSB,OGSUfHGSE,DOSEiKCKCP,NUIK,HMAT)
C*** SUBROUTINE CROPCO CALCULATES THC CROP COEFFICIENTS f CH USE IN
C*** THE MAIN PROGRAM. THE CRCP COEFFICIENTS ARE CALCULATED BY THE
C*** PROCEDURES CUTLINEt) IN TECHNICAL RELEASE NO 21, IRRIGATION
C*** WATER REQUIREMENTS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
C**» SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, ENGINEERING DIVISION, APRIL 1967.
C*** SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO* ADAPTATION TO THE MODEL.
C*«* EQUATIONS FOR THE CROP GROWTH STAGE COEFFICIENT CURVES WERfc
C*** DEVELCPED WHICH ELIMINAIES THE NECESSITY CF READING THC VALUES
C*** FKCM THE CURVES. INPUTS TO THE SUBROUTINE INCLUDE THE CROP.
C*** MONTH AND DAY GROWING BEGINS AND ENI1S, NUMBER CF DAYS IN EACH
C*** MONTH, AND THE MEAN MONTHLY AVERAGE TtHPERATURES IN FAHRENHEIT
C**« DEGREES.
INTEGER CROP.OGSO.DGSE
INTEGER MOIMI12I,SHIFT
REAL MIDI 12)/12*l)./,UBMDl 12 )/12*0.7 ,ACC ( 12)/12«0./,PCGS ( 12)/12*0./
REAL KMATI 12>,KTU2),KCROP|7,l2),PCGSnm
C*** MGSP= MONTH GROWING SEASON BEGINS EXPRESSED NUMERICALLY IE 1-12
C**« OGSB= DAY GROWING SEASON OEGINS EXPRESSED NUMERICALLY
C**« MGSE = MUNTH GROWING SEASON ENOS EXPRESSED NUMERICALLY IE 1-12
C*** DGSE = DAY CROWING SEASON ENDS EXPRESSED NUMERICALLY
C*** MIO'MEDIAN DA1ES Lf THE MONTHS IN THE GROWING SEASON
C*** 03MD= DAYS DETHEEN MID DATES
C*»* ACC = ACCUMULATIVE DAYS IN GROWING SEASON
C*** PCGS= PERCENT OF GROWING SEASON REACHEd AI HID DATES
C*** MMAT=MEAN MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURES
C*** MGS01=TEMPGRAUY STORAGE fCR MGSU
C*** HGSEl=TEMPCRARY STORAGE FCR MGSE
C*** PCGSl^TEMPHRAKY STORAGE FOR PCGS
KGSB1=MGSB
NGSE1*MGSE
IF(MGSO.GT.MGSE) GO TO 1
GU TO 7
C*** WHEN HGSB IS GREATER THAN MGSE SUCH AS IN WINTER WHEAT ThE
C*** SUBROUTINE "SHIFTS" OR ADOS 1 TO MGSIJ AND MGSE UNTIL MGS8 * 13
C*** WHICH CORRESPONDS TO JANUARY. THIS SHIFT WAS NECESSARY TO
C*** FACILITATE PROGRAM LOOPING. AFTER CALCULATIONS ARE MAJE THE
C»»* CROP COEFFICIENTS ARE "SHIFTED" 9ACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL HOr4THS.
C********************************************** 4********************************
C*******************************************************************************
£****•**************************************************************************
C*** *•*
C**» ***
C*»* *•*
C*»* *** CAUTION TO USER *** THIS ROUTINE WILL NOT WORK IF THE *«*
C*** GROWING SEASON EXCEEDS ONE YEAR. **«
C*»* ***
C*»* ***
C*»* »»*
Q»**•*•»»***********•**»**»*****»**»*••»*******»***•****»**»*»**•*•****»***»****
£***»»»»*ft*********************************************************************
C*******************************************************************************
1 SHIFT-13-MGSB
MCSE-MGSEfSHIFT
MGSB'l
7 NPIUS-MGSB*!
NHINU$"«CSE-1
HIOIHGS8I-tfNOIM(MCS8)-OCSB1/2.>*06$B
-------
0016
0017
0018
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
0024
0025
0026
0027
0028
0029
0030
0031
0032
0033
0034
0035
0036
0037
OC38
0039
0040
0041
0042
0043
0044
0045
0046
0047
0048
0049
0050
0051
0052
0053
0054
0055
0056
0057
0058
0059
0060
0061
0062
0063
0064
DC 2 N=NPLUS,NM1NUS
2 KIDINI*NOIM(NI/2.0
MIOIHGSE)=OGSE/2.0
OBMO(P,GSBI=MIOtMGSB)-OGSB
UU 3 NONPLUS,NM1NUS
3 DBMDLUS,MGSE
4 ACC(NI=ACC (N-l I t-DBMDINI
ACCfMGSE)=ACC(MGSEI-MIO(MGSE)
DO 5 N=MGSB,MGSE
5 PC'JS(NI*(ACCIN)*100.)/UCC(MGSE)»MIOIHGSE»
IF(HGSOl.LE.HGSEl) GO TO 8
00 9 N=l,12
NN=N-SHIFT
IFIKN.LE.O) NN-NN»12
IFINN.GT.HGSE1.ANO.NN.LT.HGSB1I GO TO 31
PCGSKNN)'PCGS(N)
GC TO 9
31 PCGS1(NH)=0.0
9 CONTINUE
00 II N=l,12
11 PCGS(NI^PCGSKN)
8 MGSC^MGSBl
MGSE«MGS£1
00 16 J = l, 12
C*»* KT IS A CLIMATIC COEFFICIENT APPLIED TO THE CROP GROWTH
C*** COtFFICIENT. IT IS CALCULATED BY THE FOLLOWING EQUATION!
KT1J)=.0173»HMAT(J)-.314
IFIHKATIJJ.LT.36.) KTIJI-.3
16 CONTINUE
C**« CRCP=1 FOR WHEAT
C*** CRf)P = 2 FOR SOKGHUM
C**« CROP=3 FOR CURN
C*** CRCP»4 FOR SOYBEANS
C*** CROP'S FOR PASTURE
C*»* CROP=6 FOR ALFALFA
C*** CRCP«7 FOR FALLOW
GO TO (10,20,30.40,50,60,701,CROP
10 XBAR=50.
A«1.3<*093399
B»-0.0036C378
C*-0.00004976
0«-0.00000233
E»-0.00000004
GC TO 1001
20 XBAR»50.
A«l.05528355
8=0.00198600
C=-0.00051577
0*0.00000045
E'O.00000011
GO TO 1001
30 XOAR-50.
A«l.02805328
B'O.00880046
C«-0.00031919
WHEAT
WHEAT
WHEAT
WHEAT
WHEAT
SORGHUM
SORGHUM
SORGHUM
SORGHUM
SORGHUM
CURN
CORN
CORN
-------
0065 0=-0.0000019* CORN
0066 E=0.00000007 CORN
0067 GO TO 1001
006S 40 XBAR=50.
0069 A=0.74790430 SOYBEANS
0070 6=0.01474796 SOYBEANS
0071 O-O.00013486 SOYBEANS
0072 0=-0.00000443 SOYBEANS
0073 E-0. SOYBEANS
0074 GO TC 1001
C*»* FOR PERENNIAL CROPS SUCH AS ALFALFA AND PASTURE, VALUES OF THE
C*** CROP COEFFICIENTS ARE BEST PLOTTED ON A HCNTHLY BASIS THEREFORE
C**» EQUATIONS hERE NOT DEVELOPED. MONTHLY VALUES V.ERE INTEGRATED
C»*» WITHIN THE ROUTINE FOR PASTURE AND ALFALFA.
0075 50 KCROPI5.11=0.49 PASTURE
0076 KCROP<5,21=0.57 PASTURE
0077 KCRGP(5,3)=0.73 PASTURE
0078 KCROP(5,4)=0.85 PASTURE
0079 KCRGP<5,5I=0.90 PASTURE
0080 KCROP<5.6)=0.92 PASTURE
0081 KCROPI5,71=0.92 PASIURE
0082 KCROPI5,8)=0.9I PASTURE
0083 KCROP(5,9I=0.87 PASTURE
0084 KCROPI5,101=0.79 PASTURE
0085 KCK()P(5,11 1 = 0.67 PASIURE
0086 KCROP<5,12)=0.55 PASIURE
0087 00 90 J*l,12 PASTURE
0088 KCROP(5,JI=KCROP(5,J)*KTC Ji PASTURE
0089 IF(PCGSIJ).LE.O.O) KCROPI5,Jl«0.0 PASIURE
0090 90 CONTINUE PASTURE
0091 GO TO 1002
0092 60 KCROP<6,1)=0.63 ALFALFA
0093 KCROP(6,2I=0.73 ALFALFA
O094 KCRCPI6.3>=0.86 ALFALFA
0095 KCROPI6,4)=0.99 ALFALFA
OOS6 KCROPt6,5l=l.08 ALFALFA
0097 KCROP(6,6)=1.13 ALFALFA
0098 KCROPt6,n = l.ll ALFALFA
OC99 KCROPC6,81=1.06 ALFALFA
0100 KCROPC6,9)=0.99 ALFALFA
0101 KCROPC6,101 = 0.91 ALFALFA.
0102 KCROPJ6.il»=0.78 ALFALFA
0103 KCROPI6,12)»0.64 ALFALFA
0104 00 80 J=l,12 ALFALFA
0105 KCROP(6tJI»KCRO«M6,J>*KTC J) ALFALFA
0106 80 IF(PCGSIJI.LE.O.O) KCROPI6,J)-0.0 ALFALFA
0107 GO TO 1002
0108 70 XBAR»0.
0109 A=0. FALLOW
0110 B»0. FALLOW
0111 C-0. FALLOW
0112 0=0. FALLOW
0113 E-0. FALLOW
0114 1001 DO 1003 J-1.12
0115 2
-------
0119 1002 CONTINUE
C*** SINCE THE MAIN PROGRAM APPLIES THE CROP CCEFFIClEhT IKCROPI TO
C*** THE ENTIRE MONTH, THE KCRCP WAS PROPORTIONED ACCORDINGLY TO
C*** COMPENSATE FOR THIS. THE NEXT IMC CARJS DO THIS.
0120 KCROP(CROP,MGSB)~KCRCP(CRGP,MGSB)*(NOIM(MGSB)-OGSB*1)/NDIM(HGSB>
0121 KCROP(tROP,HGSE)*KCROP(CROP,MGSE)*DGSE/NOIM(MGSEI
0122 RETURN
0123 END
OJ
-------
SCALAR MAP
SYMBOL LOCATION SYMBOL LOCATION
MGSB1 148 MGSB 14C
NPLUS ISC NMINUS 160
NN 170 J 174
B 184 C 188
SYMBOL
MGSE1
DGSB
CROP
D
LOCATION
150
164
178
1BC
SYMBOL
MGSE
N
XBAR
E
LOCATION
15
-------
F128-LEVEL LINKAGE EDITOR OPTIONS SPECIFIED LET,LIST,MAP
DEFAULT OPTICNIS) USED - SUE-t 159744,24576)
MODULE HAP
Cn
CONTROL SECTION
NAME ORIGIN
MAIN
CRCPCO
IHCSEXP *
IHCNAHEL*
IHCFRXPI*
IHCFRXPR*
IHCECOHH*
IHCCOHH2*
IHCSSQRT*
IHCFCVTH*
IHCSLOG *
IHCEFNTH*
IHCEFIOS*
IHCFIOS2*
IHCERRM *
IHCUOPT *
1HCETRCH*
IHCUATBL*
ENTRY ADDRESS
TOTAL LENGTH
00
4BB8
53EO
5A78
6540
6688
6810
7778
7008
7F20
90CO
9278
97CO
A6E8
AC 18
B1FO
B4FO
B780
LENGTH
4BB2
028
192
AC 3
141
183
F61
650
145
1190
186
542
F28
52E
504
300
28E
208
00
B988
ENTRY
NAME
EXP
FRDNL*
FRXPI*
FRXPRI
IOCOH*
SEOOASO
SORT
A DC ON*
FCVIOUTP
ALOG10
ARITH*
FIOCS*
ERRHON
IHCTRCh
LOCATION
58EO
5A78
6540
6688
6810
7AFO
7008
7F20
8550
90CO
9278
97CO
AC 1 8
B4FO
NAME LOCATION NAME LOCATION NAME LCCATIO
FHRNL* 607C
FDIDCSI 68CC INTSWTCH 7756
FCVAOUTP 7FCA FCVLOUTP 805A FCVZOUTP 81AA
FCVEOUTP 8A5A FCVCOUTP 8C74 INT6SHCH 8F5B
ALCG 9008
AOJSWTCH 9614
F1CCSBEP 97C6
IHCERRE AC30
ERRTRA B4F8
»***KAIN
DOES NOT EXIST BUT HAS BEEN ADDED TO DATA SET
-------
STATION: BELLEVILLE, KANSAS 1949 TO 1973
CRITICAL EVENT- 5.10 INCHES
FEEDLOT AREA- 40.00 ACRES
POND VARIABLES:
IA) DASE DIMENSION— 370.00 FEET BY 190.00 FEET
IB) SIDE SLOPE— RUN: RISE - 3.0 : 1
(Cl MAXIMUM DEPTH— 6.00 FEET
ID) MAXIMUM POND VOLUME— 202.33 ACRE-IKCHES
IE) DIRECT RECEIVING AREA (FOR PRECIPITATION) — 3.14 ACRES
DISPOSAL AREA VARIABLES:
IA) DISPOSAL AREA— 80.00 ACRES
(Bl CROP— CORN
1C) SOIL TYPE— 5 (SCS) SOIL TYPE
(0) DISPOSAL RATE— 0.50 INCHES/DAY ON DISPOSAL DAYS
IE) IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT— IRRIGATION BELCH 0.90 AVAILABLE MOISTURE
-------
****« ANNUAL SUHHARY «»*»*
MATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREAI -
INFLOWS
OUTFLCMS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL. SURFACfc EVAP. DISCHARGE
JAN. 0.09 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
FEB. 0.02 1.20 0. 0.0 0.00 0.0
MAR. 0.05 0.07 2. 1. 00 0.05 0.0
APR. 0.07 0.11 2. 0.51 0.05 0.0
MAY 0.19 0.62 1. 0.50 0.19 0.0
JUNE 0.26 1.23 3. 0. /& O.It) O.O
JULY 0.18 1.00 5. 1.7J 0.12 0.0
AUG. 0.17 O.t>5 2. 0.61 0.12 0.0
SEPT 0.12 0.16 1. 0.10 0.11 0.0
OCT. 0.08 0.38 1. 0.46 0.08 0.0
NOV. 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.00 0.0
DEC. 0.02 0.01 0. 0.0 0.00 0.0
TOT. 1.26 S.63 17. 5.96 0.90 0.0
WATER BALANCE UNCHES) IN Tr-E DISPOSAL AREA - 1949
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
2.22
0.58
1.36
1. 78
4.88
6.65
4.55
4.26
3.10
2.02
0.0
0.62
32.02
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.0
1 .00
0.51
0.50
0.76
1.75
0.81
0.18
0.46
0.0
0.0
5.96
INTERCEPTION
0.20
0.29
0.64
0.81
1. 19
1.17
1.00
0.81
0.80
0.48
0.0
0.24
7.62
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.09
1.22
-0.93
-0.37
0. 13
0.56
-0.69
0.09
-0.02
-0.08
-0.00
0.03
0.03
OUTPUTS
SURFACE KUNOFF
0.0
0.02
0.09
0.25
0.58
1.93
0.50
0.26
0.00
0.18
0.0
0.0
3.82
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
O.Q
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AFT
0.17
0.32
1.04
1.93
1.82
3.81
6.68
6.18
3.07
0.93
1.00
0.33
27.29
CHANGE IN SN
0.18
1.2V
0.42
-0.20
1.78
0.49
-1.88
-2.20
-0.59
0.89
-I. 00
-0.02
-0.83
PERCENT OF HASTEWATER CONTROLLED'
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 151
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 = O.OB CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 0.08
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE'CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED * 51.80
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRAT1 ON. INCHES * 36.88
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES » 40.78
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.53 OR 82.2 X CF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1950
00
IKFLCWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NUV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.19
0.02
0.22
0.28
0.18
O.OT
0.02
0.01
1.08
FEEDLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.09
0.01
0.11
0.0
0.89
0.0
0.82
1.60
1.59
0.54
0.0
0.03
5.66
HATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.02
0.90
O.'i9
0.75
4.94
0.54
5.53
7.12
4.61
1.66
0.51
0.31
27.58
0.0
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.20
0.75
0.39
1.36
0.90
1.00
0.50
0.25
5.97
0.
1.
c.
0.
1.
2.
3.
3.
2.
2.
1.
1 •
16.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0. 13
0.0
0.0
0.20
0.75
0.89
1.36
0.90
1.00
0.50
0.25
5.97
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.12
0.10
0.06
0. 12
0. 13
0.07
0.10
0.02
0.00
0.79
1950
, DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.08
-0.10
0.08
-0.09
0.78
-0.79
0.02
0.39
0.81
-0.49
-0.50
-0.21
-0.01
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0.03
0.52
0.44
0.40
0.88
O.b4
1.30
1.32
0.58
0.32
0.24
0.20
6.87
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.87
0.0
0.15
1.43
1.67
0.89
0.03
0.0
5.05
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.19
0.17
0.19
0.23
1.49
3.60
4.42
4.49
2.85
1.14
0.80
0.37
19.93
CHANGE IN SN
-0.14
0.36
-0.13
0.12
1.90
-2.95
0.55
0.74
0.91
0.51
-0.07
-0.01
1.79
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED* 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 158
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 * 0.0 CHANGE IN SNUU STORACE--0.08
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE*CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED • 72.23
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICNi INCHES « 36.SO
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES • 34.96
HAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 32.38 OR 83.1 S Of ANNUAL
-------
7/12/51 - DISCHARGE OF
7/14/51 - DISCHARGE OF
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
10.82 ACRE-IN
1.21 ACRE-IN
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1951
VO
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.03
0.07
0.07
0.17
0.12
0.33
0.32
0.11
0.19
0.10
0.02
0.01
1.5*
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.85
0.28
1.53
2.53
0.04
0.69
0.16
0.01
0.0
6.54
HATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.75
1.66
1.90
4.10
3.15
8.42
8.03
2.66
4.71
2.42
0.58
0.21
39.29
0.0
0. 13
0.42
0.99
0.0
0.73
3.63
0.0
0.72
0.25
0.0
0.0
6.86
0.
1.
I.
3.
0.
2.
e.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
18.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0. 13
0.42
0.99
0.0
0. 73
3.63
0.0
0.72
0.25
0.0
0.0
6.86
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
0-00
0.01
0.04
0.07
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.16
0.10
0.06
0.02
0.00
1.06
1951
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.15
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.07
0.2-7
-0. J5
-0.04
0.23
0.94
-1.15
-0.01
0.05
-O.05
0.02
0.00
0.01
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0.22
0.45
0.72
0. 73
0.82
1.39
1.4t)
1.04
1.03
0.80
0.25
0.10
9.05
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.35
0.11
1.11
0.76
2.49
2.85
0.02
0.38
0.29
0.00
0.0
8.36
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.20
1.67
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.87
AET
0.25
0.34
1.04
2.26
1.76
3.48
6.26
6.20
3.08
0.73
0.60
0.39
26.44
CHANGE IN SM
0.08
1 .04
0.45
0.83
0.22
0.59
-0.61
-4.40
0.94
0.79
-0.27
-0.28
-0.57
PERCENT OF WASTEHATER CONTROLLED- 98.14
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 11)
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 * 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 0.0
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE*CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED * 100.00
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOIRANSPIRATICN, INCHES * 35.81
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES * 36.52
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES « 31.87 OR 82.7 * CF ANNUAL
-------
00
O
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY »****
MATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AKEAJ - 1952
INFLCHS
MONTH
JAM.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
IOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.23
0.03
0.0
0.05
0.04
0.86
FEEDLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL
0.12
0.01
0.53
0.33
0.11
0.22
0.12
0.96
0.07
0.0
0.13
0.10
2.70
HATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.35
0.36
2.68
3.32
2.7*
1.64
I .46
5.77
0.69
0.0
1.34
1.08
21. S3
0. 16
0.0
0.50
0.47
0.0
0.21
0. 15
1.05
0. 14
0.0
0.17
0.0
2.85
1.
0.
I.
1.
0.
1.
1.
3.
1.
0.
1.
0.
10.
(INCHES) IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.16
0.0
0.50
0.4F
0.0
0.21
0.15
1.05
0.14
0.0
0.17
0.0
2.85
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.12
0. 17
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.59
1952
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VCL.
-0.03
0.03
0. 10
-0.13
0.05
0.01
-0.07
0.05
-0.05
0.0
0.02
0.14
0.12
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.21
0.25
0.75
0. 68
0.66
0.51
0.61
1.21
0.40
0.0
0.16
0. 16
5.80
0.0
0.0
0.16
0.11
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.47
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.25
0.54
0.83
2.13
1.76
4.19
3.56
4.01
2.33
0.16
0.11
0.25
20.10
CHANGE IN SM
0.05
-0.15
1.66
0.67
0.26
-2.85
-2.50
1.47
-1.90
-0.16
0.86
0.13
-2.52
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED*
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS" 241
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 = 0.92 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE* 0.92
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE*CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REUUIREO ' 28.33
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES > 38.00
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 41.98
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES > 34.58 OR 82.4 X CF ANNUAL
-------
• *»*« ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
WATfcR ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREAI - 1953
00
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.14
0.10
0.08
O.OT
0.05
0.13
0.07
0.91
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL,
0.31
0.00
0.10
0.03
0.63
0.29
0.30
0.26
0.45
0.10
0.76
0.43
3.67
UATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.06
0.44
1.62
1.93
2.87
3.66
2.58
2.00
1.89
1.21
3.19
1.76
23.21
0.46
0.0
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.97
0.30
0.21
0.50
0.13
0.1S
0.0
2.85
2.
0.
1.
0.
0. •
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
11.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.'.6
0.0
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.9f
0.30
0.21
0.50
0.13
0.15
0.0
2.85
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP
o.oo
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.66
1953
. DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
CHANGE IN VIA.
-0. 15
-0.00
0.03
0.06
0.61
-0.68
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
0./3
0.49
1.06
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0.28
0.42
0.41
0. 79
0.50
1.12
0.75
0.51
0.36
0.47
0.50
0.16
6.27
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.07
0.0
0.39
0.24
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.38
0.46
1.54
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.25
0.21
1.36
0.55
1.30
3.47
4.62
2.07
1.90
0.38
0.51
0.41
17.03
CHANGE IN SH
0.92
-0.19
-0.08
0.59
0.68
-0.19
-2.50
-0.37
0.12
0.49
1.96
0.72
2.14
PERCENT OF WASTEHATER CONTROLLED* 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 253
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 * 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE«-0.92
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE=CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED * 48.44
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPGTRANSPIRATIGNt INCHES * 39.24
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 43.29
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES * 34.60 OR 79.9 X CF ANNUAL
-------
00
NJ
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
HATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES UVtR DISPOSAL AREA) - 1954
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
JAN.
FEB.
HAH.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
IOT.
0.00
0.03
0.01
O.OT
0.25
0.08
0.08
0.35
0.06
0.09
0.0
0.01
1.04
0.0
0.03
0.0
0. 14
1.55
0.22
0.01
1.73
0.15
0.19
0.0
0.0
4.01
WATER BALANCE
1.
2.
0.
0.
1.
3.
0.
5.
0.
1.
0.
0.
13.
(INCHES) IN THE
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.0%
0.79
0.17
1.87
6.42
2.15
1.94
8.96
1.57
2.25
0.0
0.38
26.55
IRRIGATION
0.50
0.69
0.0
0.0
0.50
1.47
0.0
1.97
0.0
0.31
0.0
0.0
5.45
INTERCEPTION
0.15
0.40
0.17
0.42
1.01
0.86
0.62
1.83
0.23
0.77
0.0
0.13
6.59
0.50
0.69
0.0
0.0
0.50
1.47
0.0
1.97
0.0
0.31
0.0
0.0
5.4!>
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.18
0.13
0.08
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.0
0.01
0.82
1954
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VCL.
-0.51
-O.06
-0.05
0.1 7
1.12
-1.29
O.OO
-0.00
0.11
-o.u
0.0
0.01
-1.21
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
1.89
0.19
0.0
1.33
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.41
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
AET
0.23
1.00
1.03
0.43
1.62
3.89
4.92
5.31
3.19
0.73
0.75
0.26
23.37
CHANGE IN SM
0.17
0.08
-1.03
1.01
2.41
-1.32
-3.60
2.46
-1.86
1.07
-0.75
-0.02
-1.38
PERCENT OF WASTEUATER CONTROLLED-
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 222
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 * 0.01 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE* 0.01
INPUTS-OUT PUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED ' 60.35
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES > 39.68
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPCRATICN, INCHES » 43.65
HAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES " 34.29 OR 78.5 t CF ANNUAL
-------
**»*« ANNUAL SUMMARY «»*««
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREAI - 1955
00
U>
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.0*
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.08
O.23
0.05
0.01
0.23
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.82
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
.0
.0
.81
.0
.13
.56
.01
.0
.61
.0
.0
.19
.32
MATER BALANCE
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION
0.94
1.21
0.25
0.78
2.12
5.S6
1.30
0.22
5.97
1.18
0.15
0.71
20.79
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
4.
0.
0.
0.
3.
1.
0.
10.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
4.
DISPOSAL
0
0
89
0
0
72
0
0
0
50
24
0
35
AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
1955
o.uo
0.0
0.02
0.04
0. 13
O.lb
0.06
O.01
0.05
0.09
0.02
0.00
0.58
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANCE
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
1.
-1.
-0.
0.
0.
IN VOL.
03
05
OB
01
09
09
00
00
80
54
25
21
20
OUTPUTS
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.0
0.89
0.0
0.0
1.72
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.50
0.24
0.0
4.35
INTERCEPTION
0.35
0.20
0.47
0.37
0.63
1.09
0.611
0.16
0.78
0.51
0.28
0.15
5.67
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.23
0.0
0.0
0.43
0.03
0.0
0.0
2.70
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.35
0.29
1.15
0.57
1.49
3.21
3.56
0.41
0.84
0.98
0.60
0.24
13.71
CHANGE
0.16
0.42
-0.11
-0. 16
-0.00
1. 15
-2.94
-0.35
3.92
0.66
0.01
0.32
3.07
IN SM
PERCENT OF HASTEKATER CONTROLLED' 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 181
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE—0.01
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNCU STORAGE=CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 71.57
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES ' 38.37
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES = 41.84
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES » 34.75 OR 83.1 X CF ANNUAL
-------
«**** ANNUAL SUMMARY «»•»*
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1956
00
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAH.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.03
0.0?
0.00
0.05
0.09
0.23
0.08
0.05
0.00
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.62
FEEOLGT RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.42
0.0
0.24
1.14
0.3T
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.00
0.0
2.23
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.66
0.54
0.04
1 .20
2. IB
5. 76
2.15
1.36
0.01
1.46
0.50
0.04
15.90
0.21
0.0
0.45
0.0
0.25
0.50
1.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.41
NO. DISPOSAL
1.
0.
1.
0.
1 .
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
(INCHES) IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.21
0.0
0.45
0.0
O.25
0.50
I. 00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.41
ThE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.00
0.0
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.16
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.59
1956
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
-0. 19
0.02
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.66
-0.71
0.02
-0.02
O.OB
-0.01
-0.01
-0.15
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0. 10
0.25
0. 14
0.44
0.62
1. 16
0.86
0.58
0.01
0.35
0.22
0.04
4.77
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
u.ro
0.34
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.05
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
/VET
0.33
0.39
1.29
0.50
1.88
3.92
5.71
1.30
0.61
0.27
0.59
0.32
17.10
CHANGE IN SM
-0.16
0.49
-0.93
0.26
-0.32
0.73
-3.76
-0.52
-0.61
0.84
-0.31
-0.32
-4.60
PERCENT OF UASTEWATER CONTROLIED-
100.OO
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 244
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 0.0
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SCIL MOISTUKE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED « 49.33
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES " 39.01
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES ' 42.67
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES ' 35.35 OR 82.9 I OF ANNUAL
-------
«*•*« ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1957
00
Ln
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.17
0.17
0.3O
0.05
0.20
o.oe
0.06
0.06
0.03
1.21
OUTFLOWS
FEEDLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
0
0
.0
.07
0.24
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
.74
.47
.51
.16
.33
.21
.04
.17
.0
.93
WATER BALANCE
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MArU
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION
0.28
0.42
1.82
4.20
4.36
7.74
1.16
4.99
2. 14
1.52
1.46
0.60
30.77
0.
1.
I.
3.
1.
3.
2.
4.
1.
0.
1.
0.
17.
CINCHES) IN THE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
DISPOSAL
0
14
26
86
50
16
66
45
23
0
26
0
53
AREA
- 1957
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.05
0. 14
0.15
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.66
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.01
-0.07
0.02
-0.01
-0.00
0.51
-0.51
-0.00
-0.00
0.06
-0.06
0.02
-0.04
OUTPUTS
IRRIGATION
0.0
0. 14
0.26
0.86
0.50
1.16
0.66
1.45
0.23
0.0
0.26
0.0
5.53
INTERCEPTION
0
0
0
1
1
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
.11
.37
.53
.02
. 10
.58
.54
.86
.75
.58
.52
.15
.12
SURFACE RUNUFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.27
0.37
1.92
0.10
0.40
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.16
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.10
0.27
0.25
1.67
1.67
3.67
6.61
3.43
2.91
0.75
0.4S
0.48
22.29
CHANGE IN SM
-0.00
0.07
1.29
2.10
1.73
1.74
-5.43
1.45
-1. 10
0.19
0.72
-0.40
2.28
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED' 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 217
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 • 0.45 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE- 0.45
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE=CHANGE IN SCIL MOISTURE
PERCENT Of MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 58.94
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATI ON, INCHES - J6.95
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 40.61
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.06 OR 81.4 I OF ANNUAL
-------
«»*»* ANNUAL SUMMARY »•»**
9/ 5/58 CRITICAL EVENT EXCEEDED 7.03 INCH STURM
9/ 5/58 - DISCHARGE OF 71.58 ACRE-IN
9/ 6/58 - DISCHARGE OF 33.81 AC«E-IN
HATER ACCOUNT FUR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES CVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1958
00
INFLCWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.05
0.03
0.12
0.07
0.16
O.I'.
0.38
0.06
0.46
0.01
0.04
0.00
1.53
FEEDLOI RUNOFF NO
0.08
0.29
1.15
0.04
1.00
0.34
2.50
0.06
4.05
0.0
0.05
0.02
9.58
WATER BALANCE 1
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
1.17
0.84
3.07
1.82
4.18
3.63
9.70
1.62
11.68
0.17
0.92
0.08
38.88
0.0
0.0
0.50
1.17
0.50
0.88
2.70
0.0
1.50
I. 00
0.47
0.0
8.72
. DISPOSAL
0.
0.
1.
3.
1.
2.
6.
0.
3.
2.
1.
0.
19.
INCHES) IN
DAYS OISPUSAL VOL.
0.0
0.0
0.50
i. n
0.50
0.80
2.70
0.0
1.50
1.00
0.47
0.0
8.72
ThE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE tVAP.
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.19
0. 11
0. 18
0.11
0. 16
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.99
1958
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.32
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.32
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.12
0.31
0.75
-1.17
0.48
-0.51
0.01
0.02
1.54
-1.08
-0.40
0.02
0.08
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.37
0.24
0.57
0.9')
0.66
1.01
1.97
0.65
I. 11
0.30
0.23
0.21
8.32
0.01
0.03
0.48
0.10
1.02
0.40
3.72
0.0
3.52
0.0
0.00
0.0
9.29
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ACT
0.26
0.37
0.71
2.23
1.79
3.69
6.28
5.70
3.11
1.07
0.88
0.31
26.39
CHANGE IN SM
0.68
0.25
2.06
-0.32
1.21
-0.59
0.42
-4.73
5.44
-0.20
0.11
-0.27
4.06
PERCENT CF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED'
88.14
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 98
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 » 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW SIORAGE«-0.45
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE=CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM PONO VOLUME REQUIRED » 100.00
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES * 35.73
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES * 39.16
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATJONr INCHES • 32.98 OR 84.2 * CF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
MATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1959
00
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FED.
HAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.04
0,25
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.19
0.19
0.0
0.03
1.03
FEEOLUT RUNOFF
0.01
0.37
0.43
0.0
1.22
0.14
0.04
0.23
1.06
0.75
0.0
0.0
4.26
HATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.36
0.81
2.27
1.05
6.30
1.86
1.64
1.40
4.93
4.84
0.0
0.64
26.10
0.0
0.50
0.0
0.49
0.50
0.91
0.0
0.28
0.48
0.50
1.00
0.0
4.67
NO. DISPOSAL
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
3.
0.
1.
I.
1.
2.
0.
11.
CINCHES) IN
CAYS OISPCSAL VOL
0.0
0.50
0.0
0.4-J
0.50
0.91
0.0
0.28
0.48
0.50
1.00
0.0
4.67
TFE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP.
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.17
0.08
0.12
0.01
0.05
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.65
1959
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.02
-0.10
0.'<7
-0.49
0. 79
-0.78
-0.01
-0.00
0.72
0. 36
-1.02
0.01
-0.04
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0. 11
0.27
0.76
0.57
1.11
0. 83
0.52
0.37
0.90
0. 76
0.20
0.13
6.53
0.0
0.00
0.19
0.0
1.29
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.76
1.21
0.0
0.0
3.49
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.09
1.70
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.81
AET
0.19
0.39
1.18
1.69
1.78
3.85
5.4-1
1.28
2.09
0.76
0.64
0.63
19.90
CHANGE IN SM
-O.I*
0.36
0.61
-0.31
0.91
-1.93
-4.29
0.03
1.66
2.60
. 0.16
-0.35
-1.19
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED' 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 170
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 » 0.23 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE- 0.23
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE*CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED • 57.71
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRAT10N, INCHES « 37.60
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 41.57
MAV - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 33.75 OR 81.2 S OF ANNUAL
-------
*•*•* ANNUAL SUMMARY «*««*
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AHE&) - I960
00
00
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FE3.
HAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEO.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.1 I
0.11
0.25
0.09
0.18
0.12
0.05
0.01
0.02
1.15
FEEDLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
0.82
1.34
0.12
0.17
0.98
0.05
0.54
0.64
0. 12
0.0
0.0
4.77
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
1.94
1 .38
2.00
2.68
2. 70
6.26
2.22
4.62
3. 12
1.37
0.38
0.50
29. 17
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.40
0.23
0.80
0.28
0.64
0.63
0.0
0.19
0.0
5.16
0.
0.
0.
5.
I.
2.
1.
Z.
2.
0.
1.
0.
14.
(INCHES) IN THE
c.o
0.0
0.0
2 . 40
0.23
0. 80
0.2U
0.64
0.63
0.0
0. 17
0.0
5. 16
01 SPOSAL AUEA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP
0.0
0.00
0.01
0. 13
0. 16
0. 14
0.15
0.08
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.79
1960
. DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.08
0.87
1.41
-2.31
-0. 11
0.28
-0.28
-0.00
0.11
0.09
-0. 18
0.02
-0.03
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
O.Z6
0. 19
0.21
1.15
0.83
1.21
0.87
0.97
0.57
0.27
0.20
0.21
6.93
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.00
0.01
O.M
0.25
0.38
1.62
0.0
0.0
0. 14
0.03
0.0
0.0
3.13
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
1.20
0. 79
0. 76
0.26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.01
AET
0.19
0.24
0.52
2.44
I. 75
3.65
6.45
4.47
2.49
0.92
0.75
0.26
Z4.13
CHANGE IN SM
0.35
1.34
0.34
0.46
-0. 79
0.32
-4.83
-0.18
0.55
0.15
-0.39
-0.00
-2.68
PERCENT OF HASTEWATER CONTROLLED"
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OAYS = 142
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 * 0.04 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE*-0.20
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE*CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED = 98.53
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSP IRATICNt INCHES = 35.45
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 38.96
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.18 OR 85.2 ( OF ANNUAL
-------
**»*• ANNUH SUMMARY *»*»»
9/12/61 CRITICAL EVENT EXCEEDED 6.U INCH STORM
9/12/61 - DISCHARGE OF 30.37 ACRE-IN
9/13/61 - DISCHARGE OF 47.07 ACRE-IN
HATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1961
OO
VO
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.00
0.02
0.13
0.07
0.30
0.15
0.09
0.09
0.43
0.08
0.09
0.03
1.49
FEEOLOT RUNOFF
0.07
0.07
0.36
0.10
1.54
0.8)
0.47
0.18
4.05
0.35
0.42
0.0
8.45
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
O.OB
0.42
3.27
1.P6
7.61
3.86
2.40
2.25
10.88
2.16
2.25
0.83
37.89
0.0
0.19
0.34
0.21
0.50
1.97
0.50
0.20
1.50
0.50
0.0
0.0
5.91
NO. DISPOSAL DAYS
0.
.
.
.
.
4.
.
.
3.
1.
0.
0.
14.
(INCHES) IN THE
DISPOSAL VOL
0.0
0. 19
0.34
0.21
0.50
1.97
0. 50
0.20
1.5Q
0.50
0.0
0.0
5.91
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP.
0.00
0.00
0.05
O.06
0. 18
0.17
O.07
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.83
1961
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.97
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.97
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.07
-O.I I
o.to
-0.10
1 .16
-1.16
-0.00
-0.00
1.91
-0.16
0.48
0.03
2.22
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.11
0.29
0. 73
0.59
1.46
0.98
0.54
0.73
1.00
0.39
0.37
0.0
7.19
0.0
0.0
0.58
0.01
1.46
0.86
0.01
0.0
3.78
0.61
0.06
0.0
7.37
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.59
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.65
0.0
1.24
AET
0.37
0.24
1.10
1.77
1.67
3.72
6.67
3.40
2.02
0.99
0.45
0.30
22.70
CHANGE IN SN
-0.37
0.08
1.21
-0.30
3.52
-0.29
-4.31
-1.68
5.58
0.67
0.72
-0.19
4.62
PERCENT OF HASTEUATER CONTROLLED- 90.23
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 140
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.72 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 0.68
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE'CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED * 100.00
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES - 36.78
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 40.59
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 32.75 OR 80.7 I CF ANNUAL
-------
»*»** ANNUAL SUMMARY »**»*
2/ 2/62 - DISCHARGE OF 30.29 ACRE-IN
HATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN UCHtS UVCR DISPOSAL AREA) - 1962
VO
O
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
HAR.
AP4.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FES.
HAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.03
0.18
0.26
0.19
0.12
0.15
0.09
0.03
0.03
1.24
FEEOLOT RUNOFF
0.0
0.13
0.37
0.0
1.03
1.37
0.36
0.24
0.19
0.29
0.01
0.0
4.61
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.99
0.97
2.42
0.74
4.64
6.61
4.81
3.01
3.70
2.38
0.70
0.66
31.63
0.0
0.50
0.50
1 .91
0.0
2.00
0.96
0.0
0.38
0.21
0.19
0.0
6.64
NO. DISPOSAL
0.
1.
1.
4.
U.
4.
4.
0.
2.
1.
1.
0.
10.
( INCHES) IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
o.c
0.50
0.5J
1.91
0.0
2.00
0.96
0.0
0.38
0.21
0. 19
0.0
6.6'»
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.0
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.23
0. 14
0.18
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.95
1962
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.48
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.48
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.04
-0.24
-0.03
-1 .96
1. 12
-0.60
-0.53
0. 17
-0.11
0. 13
-0.16
0.02
-2.21
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0. 25
0.20
0. 79
0.84
0.39
1.50
1.30
0.51
1.37
0.47
0.36
0.24
8.80
0.28
0.05
0.34
0.00
1.12
1.51
0.23
0.01
0.00
0.34
0.0
0.0
3.87
PERCOLATION
0.69
0.24
1 .26
0. 16
0.08
1.88
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.31
AET
0.26
0.59
0.85
2.35
1.94
3.68
6.37
5.76
z.ai
O.80
0.65
0.34
26.41
CHANGE IN SH
0.23
-0.04
0.04
-0.71
0.00
0.04
-2.13
-3.26
-0.10
• 0.98
-0.12
-0.16
-4.63
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED* 91.83
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS* 169
PACK ON OECEMDER 31 - 0.24 CHANGE IN SNOW STCRAGE--0.48
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE'CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED * 100.00
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES * 37.21
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES « 40.74
HAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES ' 33.38 OR 81.9 T CF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
HATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1963
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.04
0.0
0.08
0.09
0.04
0.12
0.19
0.13
0.24
0.08
0.00
0.01
1.03
0.18
0.05
0.41
0.13
0.0
0. 18
1 .11
0.60
1.24
0.28
0.0
0.00
4.21
WATER BALANCE
0.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
3.
Z.
3.
1.
1.
0.
14.
(INCHES) IN THE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
DISPOSAL
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
1.12
0.0
2.04
2.2T
1.02
3.07
4.96
3.37
6.05
1.92
0.07
0.34
26.23
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.31
0.46
0.0
0. 15
0.13
1.19
0.69
0.85
0.50
0.33
0.0
4.62
INTERCEPTION
0. 15
O.Z'»
0. 74
0.60
0.68
0.94
l.OZ
0.62
1.00
0.30
0.17
0.10
6.55
.0
.31
.46
.0
. 15
. 13
. 19
.69
.65
.50
.3J
.0
.62
AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
1963
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.13
0. 15
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.01
0.00
0.65
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.23
-0.27
-0.00
0.18
-0.18
0.04
-0.0}
-0.01
0.54
-0.21
-0.33
0.02
-0.03
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.00
0.01
0.14
0.19
0.0
0.0
0.17
0.05
O.V5
0.55
0.0
0.0
2.05
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
1
0
1
3
5
3
2
1
0
0
22
AET
.16
.78
.35
.74
.66
.35
.14
.94
.69
.11
.86
.25
.02
CHANGE IN SM
0
-0
0
0
-1
-I
-0
-0
2
0
-0
-0
0
.45
.11
.28
.75
.17
.09
. 17
.55
.27
.47
.63
.11
.37
PERCENT OF HASTEUATER CONTROLLED- 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 198
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.10 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE—0.14
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STG«AGE=CH*NGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED • 49.05
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES * 38.17
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 42.08
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION? INCHES « 33.94 OR 80.6 I CF ANNUAL
-------
***«» ANNUAL SUMMARY *•*»»
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1964
VO
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEDLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
JAN.
FF8.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.13
O.O5
0.18
0.08
0.14
0.1 I
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.82
0.00
0.0
0.11
0.25
0.0
0.72
0.30
0.25
0.22
0.0
0.00
0.07
1.93
WATER BALANCE
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
2.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
7.
(INCHES) IN THE
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.02
0.57
1.05
3.27
1.33
4.63
2.00
3.55
2.79
0.31
0.86
0.42
20.80
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.35
0.0
0.77
0.33
0.27
0.27
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.98
INTERCEPTION
0. 12
0.22
0. 32
0.90
0.58
1. 11
O.'»0
1.05
0.05
0.15
0.29
0.10
6.10
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.35
0.0
0. 77
0.33
0.2?
0.27
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.98
UISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE LVAP. DISCHARGE
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.16
0.14
0.0'»
0.10
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.67
1964
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
-0.01
0.01
0. 11
-0.02
-0.11
-0.01
0.01
0.02
-0.03
-0.00
0.02
0.08
0.09
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.39
0.00
0.60
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.99
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.31
O.20
0.34
1 .49
1.79
3.48
4.68
2.19
2.44
0.72
0.55
0.24
18.43
CHANGE IN SM
-0.31
0. 14
0.39
0.83
-1.04
0.21
-2.74
0.57
-0.23
-O.56
0.02
0.08
-2.63
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED-
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 235
PACK UN DECEMBER 31 - 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE—0.10
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE'CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 32.03
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES * 37.73
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION) INCHES * 40.17
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.33 OR 83.0 S CF ANNUAL
-------
»*»*» ANNUAL SUMMARY *»*»»
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1965
vo
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.03
0.12
0.07
0.05
0.18
0.30
0.21
0.14
0.1 7
0.01
0.00
0.02
1.30
0.02
1.52
0.18
0.11
1.01
1.30
1.53
0.95
0.62
0.0
O.O
0.0
7.25
WATER BALANCE
1.
1.
0.
4.
1.
3.
3.
4.
2.
1.
0.
0.
20.
1 INCHES ) IN THE
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
DISPOSAL
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.82
3. 14
1 .66
1.16
4.56
7.73
5. -42
3.47
4.25
0.20
0.09
0.50
33.00
IRRIGATION
0. 13
0.30
0.0
1.67
0.50
1.05
1.48
1.97
0.60
0.16
0.0
0.0
7.86
INTERCEPTION
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
7
.21
.37
.45
.n
.80
.41
.34
.78
.85
.20
.09
.19
.42
13
30
0
61
50
05
48
sr
60
16
0
0
86
AREA -
OUTFLCWS
SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
1965
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 10
0. 16
0. 13
0.12
0. 15
0.06
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.77
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
-0.08
1.34
0.24
-1.61
0.53
0.42
0. 14
-1.03
0.13
-0. 19
0.00
0.01
-0.09
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.10
0.17
0.99
2.09
0.52
0.45
0.70
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.02
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.18
0.2J
0.51
2.11
1.82
3.62
6.47
6.08
3.16
1.06
0.75
0.25
26.22
CHANGE IN SK
-0
1
2
-0
1
1
-1
-1
0
-0
-0
0
2
.01
.50
.51
.18
.45
.66
.42
.87
.14
.90
.75
.06
.20
PERCENT OF hASTEkAIER CONTROLLED' 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 153
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 « 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 0.0
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW S10RAGE-CHANGE IN SCIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VCLUME REQUIRED = 68.74
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES * 35.23
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, 'INCHES - 38.45
MAY - CCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES * 32.57 OR 84.7 « CF ANNUAL
-------
«**»* ANNUAL SUHKARY *»•»•
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1966
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.00
0.07
0.01
0.03
0.01
0. 14
0.14
0.15
0.11
0.03
0.00
0.05
0.75
FEEDLOT RUNOFF NO
0.0
0.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.79
0.47
0.91
0.60
0.0
0.00
0.0
3.26
WATtR BALANCE (
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.11
1.86
0.22
0.75
0.16
3.45
3.51
3.63
2.90
0.64
0.07
1.29
18.99
0.0
0.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.81
0.50
1.03
0.65
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.49
. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
4.
2.
0.
0.
0.
10.
INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.81
0.50
l.OJ
0.65
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.49
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLCWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.00
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.09
0.13
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.49
1966
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0-0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.00
0.06
-0.06
-0.00
-0.01
0.03
-0.02
-0.00
0.01
-0.00
-0.00
0.05
0.04
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
O.OT
O.ZO
0.24
0.37
0. 14
0.67
0.85
0.00
0-6f
0.16
0.07
0.02
4.28
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.04
0.44
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.74
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
A'ET
0.15
0.51
0.99
0.46
1.47
2.74
4.06
3.94
2.50
0.79
0.62
0.27
18.51
CHANGE IN SM
-0.13
0.92
-0.51
-0.08
-1.45
0.81
-0.90
0.08
-0.06
-0.11
-0.62
-0.27
-2.32
PERCENT OF MASTEHATER CONTROLLED"
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 251
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 « 1.27 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE* 1.27
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE=CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 33.85
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES = 37.36
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES * 40.59
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION* INCHES - 33.18 OR 81.7 t CF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
MATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREAI - 1967
VO
INFLOWS
OUTFLCWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
JAN. 0.01 0.54 1. 0.50 0.00 0.0
FEB. 0.01 0.00 0. 0.0 0.01 0.0
MAR. 0.0* 0.0 0. 0.0 0.08 0.0
APR. 0.16 0.55 2. 0.69 0.08 0.0
HAY 0.10 0.04 0. 0.0 0.12 0.0
JUNE 0.39 2.36 3. 1.50 0.22 0.0
JULT 0.13 0.26 3. 1.24 0.13 0.0
AUG. 0.10 0.62 2. 0.69 0.09 0.0
SEPT 0.26 1.50 2. 0.84 0.09 0.0
OCT. 0.05 0.0 1. 0.50 0.08 0.0
NOV. 0.02 0.0 I. 0.30 0.01 0.0
DEC. 0.06 0.07 0. 0.0 0.01 0.0
TOT. 1.33 5.93 15. 6.27 0.92 0.0
WATER BALANCE (INCHES) IN THE DISPOSAL AREA - 1967
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.35
0.25
1.02
4.19
2.52
9.82
3.29
2.65
6.57
1. 16
0.40
1.61
33.85
IRRIGATION
0.50
0.0
0.0
0.69
0.0
1.50
1.24
0.69
0.84
0.50
0.30
0.0
6.27
INTERCEPTION
0.23
0.20
0.37
1.08
0.97
1.29
1.13
0.76
1.20
0.60
0.28
0.25
8.35
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.05
-o.oc
-0.04
-0.06
0.02
1.03
-0.99
-0.06
0.83
-0.53
-0.29
0.12
C.08
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.87
0.01
3.46
0.08
0.03
0.78
0.03
0.00
0.0
5.24
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.30
0.20
0.54
1.97
1.45
3.44
6.22
4.95
2.39
0.89
0.79
0.35
23.49
CHANGE IN SM
1.59
-0.15
0.12
0.97
0.09
3.13
-2.90
-2.40
3.05
0. 16
-0.37
0.61
3.91
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED" 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS* 166
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 • 0.40 CHANGE IN SNOW S TORAGE--0.87
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STCRAGE'CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF HAXIMUH POND VOLUME REQUIRED « 65.12
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATIGN, INCHES * 36.37
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 39.66
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 31.40 OR 79.2 S CF ANNUAL
-------
**•*» ANNUAL SUMMARY ««»«•
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1968
VO
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FE3.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APK.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.15
0.10
0.17
0.18
0.37
0.17
0.12
0.04
0.07
1.40
FEEDLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0. 12
0.0
0. 12
0.39
0.02
1.14
0.74
2.30
0.92
0.79
0.19
0.0
6.73
MATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.14
0.56
O.Ob
3.63
2.51
4.31
4.59
9.40
4.43
2.97
1.07
1.74
35.61
0.0
0.25
0.14
0.47
0.0
1.22
0.77
1.71
1.89
0.50
0.50
0.0
7.45
0.
1.
1.
2.
0.
3.
2.
5.
4.
1.
1.
0.
20.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0.25
0.14
0.47
0.0
1.22
0.77
1.71
1.89
0.50
0.50
0.0
7.45
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLCWS
i SURFACE EVAP
0.00
0.0
0.01
0.06
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.68
1968
. DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.12
-0.23
-0.02
-0.00
0.01
-0.01
O.Ob
0.85
-0.91
0.35
-0.29
0.06
0.00
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0. 16
0.29
0.13
0.19
0.91
0.71
1.01
1.43
0.90
0.39
0.51
0.10
7.52
SURFACE RUNUFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.15
0.07
1.81
0.00
2.54
1.33
1.02
0.12
0.0
7.04
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.31
0.57
0.99
1.37
1.63
3.77
4.93
5.67
3.37
1.04
0.43
0.23
24.82
CHANGE IN SM
0.03
-0.05
-0.92
1.29
-0.10
-0.76
-0.59
1.47
0.71
1.02
0.52
-0.07
2.61
PERCENT OF WASTEKATER CONTROLLED*
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 134
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 * 1.47 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 1.07
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE^CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED « 36.16
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRAT1ON, INCHES - 37.C4
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES • 39.92
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 32.54 OR 81.5 t CF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
MATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA! - 1969
vo
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
HONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.02
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.26
0.09
0.38
0.06
0.06
0.15
0.00
0.02
1.30
FEEDLOT RUNOFF
0.62
0.0
1.37
0.54
1.11
0.20
2.53
0.0
0.10
0.33
0.0
0.04
6.64
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.59
1.54
2.29
2.65
6.55
2.35
9.63
1.54
1.59
3.71
0.05
0.62
93.11
0.0
0.0
0.50
2.20
0.0
1.39
2.78
0.0
0.14
0.29
0.14
0.0
7.44
NO. DISPOSAL DAYS
0.
0.
1.
5.
0.
4.
6.
0.
I.
2.
1.
0.
20.
(INCHES) IN THE 01
DISPOSAL VOL
0.0
0.0
0.50
2.20
0.0
1.J9
2.78
0.0
0. 14
0.29
0.14
0.0
7.44
SPQSAL AREA -
CUTFLCMS
. SURFACE EVAP.
0.00
0.0
0.03
0.13
0.19
0.15
0. 13
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.76
1969
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANCE IN VCL.
0.65
0.06
0.92
-1.69
1.18
-1.25
-0.00
0.01
-0.01
0.15
-0.15
0.06
-0.07
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.19
0.37
O.SO
0.97
1.08
1.02
1.33
0.64
0.42
1.00
0.15
0.21
7.89
0.02
0.00
0.09
O.U8
I.'f2
0.38
3.82
0.03
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.0
7.45
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.45
1.99
1.23
I. 70
0.16
0.16
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.73
AET
0.26
0.39
0.85
1.90
1.73
3.54
6.58
6.01
2.18
0.40
0.81
0.28
24.90
CHANGE IN SH
0.51
0.22
-0.26
-0.18
0.63
-1.35
0.52
-5.13
-0.87
2.58
-0.77
-0.11
-4.21
PERCENT OF WASTEV.ATER CONTROLLED*
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 153
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.25 CHANGE IN ShOW STORAGE—I.22
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STGRAGE*CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM PONO VOLUME REQUIRED • 70.25
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPI RAT I ON, INCHES - 35.26
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 38.74
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 32.42 08 83.7 « CF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUPPARY *****
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UK INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - I9TO
VD
00
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEd.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.11
0.16
0.18
0.04
0.09
0.30
0.08
0.04
0.01
1.06
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.05
0.0
0.01
0.40
0.67
0.99
0.05
0.54
1.99
0.36
0.09
0.0
5.15
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.11
0.05
1.2*
2.86
4.00
4.67
1.00
2.31
7.62
LIB
0.97
0.25
27.06
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.58
0.0
1.77
0.0
0.50
2.00
0.57
0.0
0.0
5.43
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
4.
0.
1.
4.
2.
0.
0.
13.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.58
0.0
1.77
0.0
0.50
2.00
0.57
0.0
0.0
5.43
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLCWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.01
0.03
0.0)
0.04
0.08
0. 14
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.73
1970
. DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.05
-0.02
0.02
-0. 11
0. 74
-0.74
-0.00
0.04
0.15
-0.19
0.11
0.00
0.06
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0. 10
0.05
0.49
0.69
0.81
1.02
0.29
0.40
1.2)
0.55
0.22
0.02
5.88
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.'.B
0.59
1.80
0.0
0.02
1.32
0.59
0.1)
0.0
4.9)
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.25
0.31
0.22
1.66
1.77
3.75
4.13
2.28
2.99
0.65
0.75
0.59
19.58
CHANGE IN SH
0.01
-0.31
0.30
0.82
0.83
-0.13
-3.42
0.11
4.08
0.55
^0. 13
-0.45
2.27
PERCENT OF MASTEHATER CONTROLLED- 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 168
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.08 CHANGE IN SNOW STCRAGE'-O.17
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 62.38
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATI ON, INCHES - 37.71
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES * 40.41
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.58 OR 83.1 S CF ANNUAL
-------
•***• ANNUM. SUHMM «»»»*
5/22/71 - DISCHARGE OF 31.20 ACRE-IN
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AKEAI - 1971
v£>
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FED.
MAR.
APR.
MAT
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.04
0.36
0.13
0.22
0.03
0.05
0.22
0.12
0.04
1.42
FEEOLOT RUNOFF
0.0
0.92
0.90
0.0
7.75
0.65
1.16
0.03
0.02
1.46
0.65
0.20
B. 75
MATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
1.33
2.93
1.19
0.90
9.06
3.31
5.60
0.85
1.20
5.58
3.02
1.07
36.04
0.0
0.0
1.00
1.00
0.50
2.50
1.35
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.50
0.0
6.85
NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0.
0.
2.
2.
1.
5.
3.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
14.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0.0
1.00
1. 00
0.50
2.50
1.35
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.50
0.0
6.65
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP.
0.0
0.01
O.05
0.12
0.14
O.24
0.16
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.92
1971
DISCHARGE
O.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.39
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.39
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.05
1.02
-0.10
-1.08
2.07
-1.96
-0.12
0.00
O.CO
1.64
0.24
0.24
2.01
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0.31
0.36
0.56
0.71
0.99
i.or
1.42
0.32
0.33
0.46
0.49
0.28
7.30
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.13
0.16
0.0
3.04
0.80
1.55
0.0
0.0
0.86
0.84
0.16
7.54
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.59
0.23
2.83
1.26
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.02
AET
0.24
0.34
0.98
1.75
1.66
3.06
6.22
4.03
1.16
0.53
O.S4
0.44
21.76
CHANGE IN SM
0.79
0.73
0.85
-0.29
1.04
-1.18
-2.37
-3.50
-0.29
3.73
1.48
0.37
1.34
PERCENT OF MASTEWATER CONTROLLED- 96.16
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 133
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 " 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW SIORAGE--0.08
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE*CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REqUIREO * 100.00
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATlCN, INCHES - 36.C9
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 39.22
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES " 32.66 OR 83.3 X CF ANNUAL
-------
**»»» ANNUAL SUMP.ARY «•***
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILJTr UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREAI - 19/2
O
O
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.12
0.2S
0.10
0.16
0.31
0.07
0.10
0.16
0.05
1.41
FEEOLOT RUNOFF
0.29
o.oe
0.0
0.46
1.29
0.77
0.44
2.19
0.11
0.36
0.85
0.53
7.40
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.17
0.44
0.52
2.96
7. IS
2.64
4.02
7.B8
1.85
2.64
4.19
1.33
35.82
0.0
1.00
1.46
0.50
0.50
1.68
0.48
1.48
0.99
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.09
NO. DISPOSAL CAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0.
2.
3.
1.
1.
4.
2.
3.
2.
0.
0.
0.
IS.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.0
1.00
1.46
0. 50
0.50
1.63
0.48
1.48
0.9-)
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.09
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.05
0. 19
0.10
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.82
1972
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.29
-0.92
-1.50
0.02
0.89
-O.S1
-0.00
0.94
-0.90
0.41
1.00
0.57
-0.10
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0.12
0.23
0.62
0.52
1.21
0.70
1.05
1.11
0.60
0.61
0.56
0.22
7.55
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.33
2.38
0.54
0.00
1.50
0.12
0.18
0.91
0.00
5.99
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.53
0.47
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.00
AET
0.27
0.64
1.82
1.10
1.72
3.77
6.32
5.76
3.37
0.62
0.40
0.14
26.12
CHANGE IN SM
-0.23
0.08
0.03
1.01
0.35
-1.16
-2.87
0.93
-1.24
1.03
2.31
0.34
0.63
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED' 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 147
PACK ON DECEMOER 31 - 0.63 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 0.63
INPim-CUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE'CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED ' 99.43
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES * 36.48
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 40.10
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES > 32.28 OR 80.5 t OF ANNUAL
-------
***»» ANNUAL SUHMARV *«*«»
3/30/73 - DISCHARGE OF 6.88 ACRE-IN
9/28/73 - DISCHARGE OF 9.59 ACRt-lN
10/11/73 - DISCHARGE OF 138.28 ACRE- IN
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) -
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.05
0.02
0.27
0.10
0.18
0.07
0.3%
0.07
0.44
0.21
0.0-4
0.11
1.90
0.03
0.08
1.27
0.20
0.79
0.18
2.40
0.02
3.24
2.07
0.05
0.22
10.55
WATER BALANCE
0.
1.
1.
5.
2.
1.
5.
0.
2.
2.
2.
0.
21.
1 INCHES) IN THE
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
1.29
0.55
6.76
2.64
4.67
1.77
8.60
1.67
11.14
5.41
1.05
2.92
48.47
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.50
0.50
2.50
0.98
0.24
2.48
0.0
0.93
I .00
1.00
0.0
10.13
INTERCEPTION
0.4}
0.30
1.2/
1. 13
0.98
0.64
1.04
0.57
1.48
0.55
0.43
0.16
8.98
0.0
0.50
0.50
2.50
0.9B
0.24
2.48
0.0
0.93
1.00
1.00
0.0
10. U
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
1973
. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
0.01
0.02
0. 10
0. 13
0. 15
0.05
0.20
0. 15
0.11
0.10
0.04
0.00
1.05
1973
0.0
0.0
0.09
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
1.73
0.0
0.0
1.93
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.07
-0.42
0.85
-2.33
-0.16
-0.04
0.06
-0.06
2.52
-0.55
-0.95
0.34
-0.66
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.06
0.01
1.74
0.75
1.13
0.18
1.81
0.0
3.39
3.29
0.08
0.00
12.46
PERCOLATION
0.31
0.52
3.04
1.13
1.96
0.23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.35
0.77
0.20
8.56
AET
0.22
0.45
1.18
2.17
1.68
3.83
6.44
5.70
2.68
1.00
0.64
0.34
26.43
CHANGE IN Sf
0.73
-0.06
0.03
-0.05
-0. 10
-2.94
1.78
-4.66
4.52
1.22
0.13
0.11
0.70
PERCENT CF HASTEWATER CONTROLLED- 84.47
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 96
PACK ON OECEMUER 31 * 2.10 CHANGE IN SNOW SICRAGE* 1.48
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE*CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED » 100.00
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES - 36.80
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES ' 41.08
HAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES « 32.71 OR 79.6 % CF ANNUAL
-------
STATION: BELLEVILLE, KANSAS 1949 TO 1973
CRITICAL EVENT- 5.10 INCHES
FEEOLOT AREA- 40.00 ACRES
POND VARIABLES:
IAI BASE DIMENSION— 570.00 FEET BY 190.00 FEET
IBI SIDE SLOPE— RUN: RISE * 3.0 : 1
(C) MAXIMUM DEPTH— 6.00 FEET
(01 HAX1PUM POND VOLUME— 202.33 ACRE-INCHES
IE) DIRECT RECEIVING AREA (FOR PRECIPITATION) — 3.14 ACRES
DISPOSAL AREA VARIABLES:
(A) DISPOSAL AREA— 80.00 ACRES
IBI CROP— CORN
(CI SOIL TYPE— 5 (SCSI SOIL TYPE
10) DISPOSAL RATE— 0.50 INCHES/DAY ON DISPOSAL DAYS
IE) IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT— IRRIGATICN BELOW 0.90 AVAILABLE MOISTURE
***** FINAL SUMMARY *****
METEOROLOGICAL SUMMARY
AVERAGE ANNUAL LAKE EVAPORATION' 40.55 INCHES
AVERAGE MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES * 33.24 OR 82.0 X OF ANNUAL
-------
AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION- 30.03 IKCHES
AVERAGE ANNUAL POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATIGh- 3T.12 INCHES
PRECIPITATION RANGE* 32.57 INCHES (FROM A LOU OF 15.90 INCHES TO A HIGH OF 48.4T INCHES)
SUMMARY OF PONO OPERATIONS
NO. OF YEARS HAVING A DISCHARGE' 6
AVERAGE NO. OF DISCHARGES / YEAR HAVING A DISCHARGE- 1.83
AVERAGE DISCHARGE- 38.12 ACRE-INCHES
AVERAGE PERCENT OF UASTEUATER CONTROLLED- 97.96
TOTAL DISCHARGE VOLUME- 419.30 ACRE-INCHES
TOTAL NO. OF DISCHARGES- 11.
MAXIMUM DISCHARGE-138.28 ACRE-INCHES
SUMMARY OF DISPOSAL AREA
AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPTH OF WASTEUATER APPLIED- 5.72 INCHES OVER ENTIRE DISPOSAL AREA
AVERAGE ANNUAL DISPOSAL AREA RUNOFF- *.65 INCHES
AVERAGE ANNUAL DISPOSAL AREA PERCOLATION- 1.42 INCHES
AVERAGE ANNUAL NO. OF DISPOSAL DAYS- 14.6
-------
STATIONS BELLEVILLE. KANSAS 19*9 TO 1973
CRITICAL EVENT- 5.10 INCHES
FEEOLOT AREA- 40.00 ACRES
POND VARIABLES!
IAI BASE DIMENSION— 700.00 FEET BY 2800.00 FEET
IB) SIDE SLOPE— RUN> RISE > 3.0 > 1
1C) MAXIMUM DEPTH— 6.00 FEET
ID) MAXIMUM PONO VOLUME— 3344.52 ACRE-INCHES
IE) DIRECT RECEIVING AREA IFOR PRECIPITATION! — 47.92 ACRES
DISPOSAL AREA VARIABLES:
IA) DISPOSAL AREA— 80.00 ACRES
IB) CROP— CORN
1C) SOIL TYPE— 5 ISCS) SOIL TYPE
(0) DISPOSAL RATE— 0.50 INCHES/DAY ON DISPOSAL DAYS
IEI IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT— IRRIGATION BE I. OH 0.0 AVAILABLE MOISTURE
-------
o
Ln
MM* ANNUAL SUNMMt «»»*«
MATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1949
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
1.33
0.35
0.81
1.07
2.92
3.98
2.73
2.55
1.86
1.21
0.0
0.37
19.18
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
1.20
0.07
0.11
0.62
1.23
1.00
0.85
0.16
0.38
0.0
0.01
5.63
WATER
INPUTS
BALANCE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES) IN TKE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
DISPOSAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
1949
0.0
0.03
0.89
2.33
3.31
3.87
4.33
3.59
2.32
1.51
0.73
0.11
23.02
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE
1.
I.
-0.
-1.
0.
1.
-0.
-0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
1.
IN VCL.
33
51
00
16
23
35
60
19
31
08
73
27
79
OUTPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
2.22
0.58
1.36
1.78
4.88
6.65
4.55
4.26
3.10
2.02
0.0
0.62
32.02
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INTERCEPTION
0.20
0.29
0.54
0.51
1.09
0.97
0.70
0.61
0.76
0.43
0.0
0.24
6.33
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.02
0.09
0.01
0.51
1.64
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
2.55
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.17
0.32
0.97
1.89
1.02
3.81
6.56
5.11
2.54
0.83
0.80
0.29
25.12
CHANGE
0.18
1.29
0.09
-0.62
1.46
0.22
-2.85
-1,61
-0.20
0.76
-0.80
0.01
-2.08
IN SN
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED-
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 * 0.08 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE- 0.08
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 8.73
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES • 36.88
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES " 40.78
MAV - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES • 93.53 OR 82.2 * OF ANNUAL
-------
••*»» ANNUAL SUMMARY *•*»«
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVfcR DISPOSAL AREA) - 1950
INF 1C VIS
HON1H PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.01
0.54
0.29
0.45
2.96
0.32
3.91
4.26
2.76
1.11
0.31
0.19
16. $2
0.09
0.01
0.11
0.0
0.89
0.0
0.82
1.60
1.59
0.54
0.0
0.03
5.66
WATER BALANCE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 INCHES) IN THE
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FE3.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.02
0.90
0.49
0.75
4.94
0.54
5.53
7.12
4.61
1.86
0.51
0.31
27.58
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
INTERCEPTION
0.0)
0.42
0.4't
0.40
0. 78
0.44
1.20
1.22
0.28
0.12
0. 14
0.10
5.57
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.11
0.21
0.81
2.07
2.17
2.07
3.13
3.33
2.38
1.58
0.34
0.05
18.27
1950
. DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
-0.01
0.34
-0.41
-1.62
1.67
-1.75
1.00
2.53
1.97
0.07
-0.04
0.16
3.91
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.48
0.0
0.04
0.69
0.58
0.89
0.0
0.0
2.68
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.22
1.30
2.V7
3.90
3.87
2.78
1.20
0.63
0.35
17.75
CHANCE IN SH
-O.I 2
0.32
-0.13
0.13
2.38
-2.87
0.39
1.34
0.97
-0.35
-0.26
-0.14
1.67
PERCENT OF WASTEUATER CONTROLLED* 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 « 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE»-0.OB
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE'CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM PONO VOLUME REQUIRED - 16.85
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATIONt INCHES * 36.SO
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES • 38.96
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES « 32.38 OR 83.1 t OF ANNUAL
-------
SUMMIT ••••»
HATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1951
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
KAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.45
1.11
1.14
2.64
1.89
5.04
4.81
1.71
Z.82
1.45
0.35
0.19
29.53
•FEEOLOT RUNOFF
0.04
0.36
0.04
0.85
0.28
1.53
2.53
0.04
0.69
0.16
0.01
0.0
6.54
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.75
1.86
1.90
4.40
3.15
8.42
8.03
2.86
4.71
2.42
0.58
0.21
39.29
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.07
0.30
0.86
2.17
3.24
3.57
4.13
3.66
2.27
1.40
0.30
0.09
22.05
1951
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.42
1.18
0.32
1.32
-1.07
3.01
3.22
-1.91
1.24
0.21
0.06
0.04
8.02
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0.22
0.40
0.62
0.63
0.82
1.29
0.78
1.04
0.83
0.70
0.25
0.10
7.69
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.01
0.07
0.80
0.50
1.69
2.19
0.0
0.12
0.29
0.00
0.0
5.67
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.27
AET
0.23
0.20
1.03
2.16
1.76
3.48
6.26
5.19
2.64
0.76
0.55
0.39
24.62
CHANGE IN SN
0.10
1.44
0.19
0.81
0.07
1.97
-2.47
-3.37
1.12
0.67
-0.22
-0.28
0.03
PERCENT OF HASTEHATER CONTROLLEO-
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS" 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.0
100.00
CHANCE IN SNOW STORAGE- 0.0
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM PONO VOLUME REQUIRED - 37.43
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES * 35.81
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES « 38.52
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES • 31.87 OR 82.7 < OF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1952
M
O
00
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.21
0.52
1.61
1.99
1.64
0.98
0.87
3.46
0.41
0.0
0.80
0.65
13.14
PREC1PIIAT
0.35
0.86
2.68
3.32
2.74
1.64
1.46
5.77
0.69
0.0
1.34
1.08
21.93
FEEDLOT RUNOFF NO
0.12
0.01
0.53
0.33
0.11
0.22
0.12
0.96
0.07
0.0
0.13
0.10
2.70
HATER BALANCE 1
INPUTS
ION IRRIGATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
. DISPOSAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
INCHES) IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.13
0.66
0.57
2.29
3.26
4.32
4.47
3.65
2.62
1.42
0.54
0.06
24.00
1952
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.20
-0.13
1.56
0.03
-1.50
-3.12
-3.48
0.76
-2.14
-1.42
0.39
0.69
-8.17
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.12
0.25
0.65
0.88
0.66
0.41
0.51
0.91
0.30
0.0
0.10
0.16
4.95
0.0
0.0
0.16
0.12
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.40
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.31
0.32
0.83
1.93
1.76
3.61
2.91
3.77
1.80
0.08
0.12
0.25
17.67
CHANGE IN SM
-0.07
0.07
1.26
0.39
0.26
-2.38
-1.96
1.03
-1.41
-0.08
0.74
0.13
-2.02
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED- 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.92 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE* 0.92
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE=CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 38.65
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRAT10N, INCHES - 38.00
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES " 41.98
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 34.58 OR 82.4 I OF ANNUAL
-------
o
VO
•«*•* ANNUAL SUHMARY *****
HATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREAI - 1953
INFLCWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.04
0.26
0.97
1.16
1.72
2.19
1.55
1.20
1.13
0.72
1.91
1.05
13.90
0.31
0.00
0.10
0.03
0.63
0.29
0.30
0.26
0.45
0.10
0.76
0.43
3.67
WATER BALANCE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES) IN THE
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FES.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.06
0.44
1.62
1.93
2.87
3.66
2.58
2.00
1.89
1.21
3.19
1.76
23.21
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
INTERCEPTION
0.26
0.42
0.31
0.79
0.50
0.82
0.71
0.51
0.26
0.37
0.40
0.16
5.51
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DISPOSAL AKEA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP
0.10
0.59
1.33
2.20
3.16
4.15
3.55
1.46
1.58
0.72
0.50
0.20
19.55
1953
. DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.25
-0.33
-0.26
-1.02
-0.82
-1.67
-1.71
0.00
-0.00
0.11
2.18
1.29
-1.98
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.39
0.24
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.36
0.46
1.47
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.25
0.21
1.02
0.52
1.25
3.19
3.95
1.70
1.56
0.35
0.56
0.41
14.97
CHANGE IN SM
0.43
-0.19
0.30
0.62
0.73
-0.59
-2.08
-0.21
0.07
0.48
1.86
0.72
2.19
PERCENT OF WASTEtiATER CONTROLLED'
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS" 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - O.O CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE--0.92
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED " 14.61
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES « 39.24
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES • 43.29
HAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES " 34.60 OR 79.9 < OF ANNUAL
-------
»*»«• ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
MATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1954
INFLOWS
ML.NTH
JAN.
FEB.
HAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
OEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
HAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
OEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.03
0.47
0.10
I. 12
3.85
1.29
1.16
5.37
0.94
1.35
0.0
0.23
15.90
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.14
1.55
0.22
0.01
1.73
0.15
0.19
0.0
0.0
4.01
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.05
0.79
0.17
1.87
6.42
2.15
1.94
B.96
1.57
2.25
0.0
0.38
26.55
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES) IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.17
0.83
1.01
2.40
2.99
3.95
2.10
3.62
2.67
1.46
0.70
0.16
22.08
1954
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
-0. 14
-0.33
-0.91
-1.14
2.40
-2.44
-0.93
3.48
-1.58
0.07
-0.70
0.06
-2.16
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.05
0.20
0.17
0.42
0.91
0.64
0.62
1.53
0.23
0.67
0.0
0.13
5.57
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
1.89
0.13
0.0
0.56
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.58
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.31
0.44
0.35
0.50
1.61
3.89
3.59
4.98
2.82
0.70
0.75
0.26
20.19
CHANCE IN SM
-0.31
0.15
-0.35
0.95
2.02
-2.51
-2.27
1.90
-1.48
o.aa
-0.75
-0.02
-i.eo
PERCENT OF WASTEUATER CONTROLLED' 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.01 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 0.01
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE'CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT Of MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED • 9.66
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES • 39.66
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES « 43.65
HAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 34.29 OR 78.5 S OF ANNUAL
-------
*«»•* ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1955
INFLOWS
OUTFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
JAN. 0.56 0.0 0. 0.0 0.04 0.0
FEB. 0.72 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
MAR. 0.15 0.81 0. 0.0 0.9'. 0.0
APR. 0.47 0.0 0. 0.0 2.56 0.0
MAY 1.27 0.13 0. 0.0 1.79 0.0
JUNE 3.57 1.56 0. 0.0 3.45 0.0
JULY 0.78 0.01 0. 0.0 2.67 0.0
AUG. 0.13 0.0 0. 0.0 0.13 0.0
SEPT 3.58 1.61 0. 0.0 0.85 0.0
OCT. 0.71 0.0 0. 0.0 1.46 0.0
NOV. 0.09 0.0 0. 0.0 0.41 0.0
DEC. 0.43 0.19 0. 0.0 0.05 0.0
TOT. 12.45 4.32 0. 0.0 14.35 0.0
WATER BALANCE 1 INCHES) IN THE DISPOSAL AREA - 1955
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.94
1.21
0.25
0.78
2.12
5.96
1.30
0.22
5.97
1.18
0.15
0.71
20.79
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
INTERCEPTION
0. )5
0.20
0.27
0.37
0.63
0. 79
0.68
0.16
0.78
0.41
0.1)
0. 15
4.94
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.52
0.72
0.02
-2.09
-0.39
1.69
-1.88
0.00
4.34
-0.75
-0.32
0.56
2.42
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
1.63
0.0
0.0
0.43
0.03
0.0
0.0
2.10
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ACT
0.35
0.29
0.32
0.26
1.41
3.08
2.89
0.35
0.83
1.01
0.54
0.23
11.55
CHANGE IN SM
0. 16
O.A2
0.04
0.15
0.08
0.46
-2.27
-0.29
3.93
-0.28
-0.54
0.3)
2.21
PERCENT OF WASTEUATER CONTROLLED- 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 • 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOM SIORAGE--0.01
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED » 11.06
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN. INCHES • 38.37
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 41.84
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES • 34.75 OR 8 }.l S OF ANNUAL
-------
•»«»» ANNUAL SUMMARY •»**»
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1956
INFLOWS
MOUTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FES.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FED.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.40
0.32
0.02
0.72
1.31
3.45
1.29
0.81
0.01
0.87
0.30
0.02
9.52
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL CAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
0.0
0.42
0.0
0.24
1.14
0.37
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.00
0.0
2.23
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.66
0.5'.
0.0
-------
**••* ANNUAL SUMMARY »•***
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES UVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1957
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION .FEEOLOT RUNOFF
JAN. 0.17 0.0
FEB. 0.25 0.07
MAR. 1.09 0.24
APR. 2.52 0.74
MAY 2.61 0.47
JUNE 4.64 1.51
JULY 0.69 0.16
AUG. 2.'V9 1.33
SEPT 1.28 0.21
OCT. 0.91 0.04
NOV. 0.67 0.17
DEC. 0.41 0.0
TOT. 18.43 4.93
WATER BALANCE
OUTFLOWS
NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
0. 0.0 0.01 0.0
0. 0.0 0.34 0.0
0. 0.0 0.69 0.0
0. 0.0 1.61 0.0
0. 0.0 3.08 0.0
0. 0.0 3.72 0.0
0. 0.0 4.48 0.0
0. 0.0 2.89 0.0
0. 0.0 2.33 0.0
0. 0.0 1.28 0.0
0. 0.0 0.44 0.0
0. 0.0 0.33 0.0
0. 0.0 21.40 0.0
(INCHES) IN THE DISPOSAL AREA - 1957
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.28
0.42
1.82
4.20
4. 36
7. 74
1.16
4.99
2.14
1.52
1.46
0.68
30.77
1RR 1 CAT ION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
INTERCEPTION
0.11
0.27
0.53
0.82
1. 10
1.38
0. 34
0.60
0.55
0.58
0.48
0. 15
6.92
CHANGE IN VOL.
0. 15
-0.02
0.64
1.44
0.00
2.43
-3.62
1.43
-0.84
-0.33
0.60
0.08
1.96
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.37
1.85
0.10
0.30
0.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.73
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.10
0.27
0.27
1.77
1.56
3.59
4.75
2.93
2.52
0.66
0.48
0.34
19.2)
CHANGE IN SM
-0.08
0.04
1.02
1.55
1. 34
0.92
-<..03
1.16
-0.98
0.28
0.49
-0.26
1.45
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED" 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 • 0.45 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE- 0.45
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 12.10
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRAT1 ON, INCHES • 36.95
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 40.61
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 31.06 OR 81.4 I OF ANNUAL
-------
*••»« ANNUAL SUHPAPY «»«*»
9/ 5/58 CRITICAL EVENT EXCEEDED 7.03 INCH SIORH
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IK INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AFUA) - 1958
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
NAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.70
0.50
1.84
1.09
2.50
2.17
5.81
0.97
7.00
0.10
0.55
0.05
23.29
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO
0.08
0.29
1.15
0.04
1.00
0.34
2.50
0.06
4.05
0.0
0.05
0.02
9.58
WATER BALANCE (
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
1.17
0.84
3.07
1.82
4.18
3.63
9.70
1.62
11.68
0.17
0.92
0.08
38.88
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
. DISPOSAL DAYS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
INCHES) IN THE DI
DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.06
0. Ib
0.43
2.22
3.27
3.76
4. 10
3.66
2.49
1.50
0.60
0.04
22.27
1958
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANCE IN VCL.
0.72
0.63
2.56
-1 .09
0.24
-1.2<.
4.21
-2.63
8.56
-1.40
0.00
0.03
10.59
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.37
0.24
0.57
0. Ib
0.56
0.81
1.48
0.65
0. 99
0. 10
0.13
0.21
6.88
0.0
O.OJ
0.24
0.01
\.?1
0.16
2.85
0.0
3.01
0.0
0.00
0.0
7.57
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ALT
O.t'6
0.3?
0. 71
1.64
1 . 78
3.63
5.90
3.47
3.00
1.14
0.71
0.21
22.82
CHANGE IN SH
0.69
0.2i
1.81
-0.59
0.5?
-0.98
-0.5?
-2.50
4.68
-1.07
-0.09
-0.17
2.06
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED* 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 » 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE--0.45
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SGIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED * 34.43
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. INCHES * 35.73
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES » 39.16
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 32.98 OR 84.2 t CF ANNUAL
-------
•***» ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1959
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
NONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JUtY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.22
0.49
1.36
0.63
3.77
1.11
0.98
0.84
2.95
2.90
0.0
0.38
15.63
FEEDLOF RUNOFF
0.01
0.37
0.43
0.0
1.22
0.14
0.04
0.23
1.06
0.75
0.0
0.0
4.26
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.36
0.81
2.27
1.05
6.30
1 .86
1.64
1.40
4.93
4.84
0.0
0.64
26.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NO. DISPOSAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES) IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.05
0.12
1.37
2.35
3.30
3.97
4.23
3.97
2.46
1.34
0.35
0.26
23.76
1959
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0. 18
0. 74
0.43
-1.72
1.69
-2. 72
-3.20
-2.90
1.56
2.31
-0.35
0. 13
- J.87
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.11
0.27
0.66
0.47
1.01
0. 53
0.52
0.71
0. B6
0.66
0.0
0.13
5.51
0.0
0.0
0.19
0.0
1 .29
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.56
1.21
0.0
0.0
3.26
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.12
0.22
0.41
.14
. 70
.85
4.42
.06
.68
0.80
0.79
0.49
16.96
CHANGE IN SM
-0.07
0.52
1.01
-0.55
2.20
-2.52
-3. 30
0.07
1 .63
2.1 7
-0.79
-0.22
0.14
PERCENT OF WASIEWATER CONTROLLED- 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.23 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 0.23
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM PONO VOLUME REQUIRED - 35.11
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES - 37.80
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES • 41.57
MAT - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.75 OR (1.2 S CF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY •*•«»
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1960
INFLCWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR,
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
1.16
0.81
1.20
1.61
1.62
3.75
1.33
2.77
1.87
0.82
0.23
0.30
17.47
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
0.02
1.3*
0.12
0.17
0.98
0.05
0.54
0.64
0.12
0.0
0.0
4.77
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
1.94
1.38
2.00
2.68
2.70
6.26
2.22
4.62
3.12
1.37
0.38
0.50
29.17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
, SURFACE EVAP
0.0
O.Ob
0.21
2.45
3.24
3.75
4.23
3.71
2.55
1.49
0.56
0.04
22.29
1960
. DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
1.16
1.58
2.33
-0. 72
-1.45
C.97
-2.85
-0.41
-0.03
-0.56
-0.33
0.26
-0.05
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0.26
0.19
0.21
0.77
0.73
I. 11
0.77
0.77
0.47
0.27
0.10
0.21
5.85
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.01
0.71
0.09
0.38
1.46
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.03
0.0
0.0
2.68
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.37
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.40
ACT
0.19
0.24
0.52
1.33
1.75
3.65
6.45
3.95
2.11
0.86
0.86
0.25
22.17
CHANCE IN SM
0.35
1.34
1.54
0.45
-0.5J
0.04
-5.00
-0.10
0.53
0.21
-0.58
0.01
-1.74
PERCENT OF MASTEKATER CONTROLLED* 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS* 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.04 CHANGE IN SNOU STORAGE—0.20
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE*CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED ' 34.16
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES - 35.45
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES » 38.96
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 93.18 OR 85.2 I OF ANNUAL
-------
•••*» ANNUAL SUMMARY «•***
9/12/61 CRITICAL EVENT EXCEEDED 6.11 INCH STORM
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1961
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
KAY
JUNE
jm. Y
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DFC.
TOT.
0.05
0.25
1.96
1.1 1
4.56
2.32
1.44
1.35
6.52
1.29
1.35
0.50
22.69
FEEDLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0.07
O.Of
0.36
0. 10
1.54
0.83
0.47
0.18
4.05
0.35
0.42
0.0
8.45
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.08
0.42
3.27
1 .86
7.61
3.88
2.40
2.25
10.88
2.16
2.25
0.83
37.89
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES) IN IHE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DISPOSAL
.0
.0
.0
. 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
AKLA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP
1961
0.06
0.41
1.32
2.22
3.09
3.83
4.37
3.64
2.32
1.47
0. J9
0.09
23.20
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.07
-0.08
1.00
-1 .01
3.01
-0.68
-2. •(&
-2.12
8.25
0.17
1.37
0.41
7.94
OUTPUTS
INTER*.
0.
0.
0.
0.
I.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
1 PTION
1 1
19
6 )
'•9
J6
;«
50
6 1
80
35
37
0
21
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.42
0.01
1 .',1,
O.R6
0.01
0.0
2.99
0.61
0.06
0.0
6.42
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At t
0.27
0.75
1 .12
1 .HO
1 .62
3.77
4.95
2.W
1 .95
1.02
0.45
0.30
19.92
CHANGE IN SK
-0
-0
1
-0
3
-1
-3
-0
5
0
i
.27
.01
. 10
.44
.16
.48
.06
.H5
.14
.17
.37
-0. 19
4
.65
PEMCFNT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED- 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK I)N DECEMBER 31 - 0.72 CHANGE IN SMJW STORAGE- O.68
INPUTS-OUIPUIS-CHANGE IN SNOW STGRAGE^CHANGE IN sou MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 39.74
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL E VAPOT RANSP IR AT I ON , INCHES - 36.78
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 40.59
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES • 32.75 OR 80.7 t CF ANNUAL
-------
00
»•••• ANNUAL SUMMARY »•»•*
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREAI - 1962
INFICWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.59
0.58
1.45
0.44
2.78
3.96
2.88
1.80
2.22
1.43
0.42
0.40
18.95
0.0
0.73
0.37
0.0
1.03
1.37
0.38
0.24
0.19
0.29
0.01
0.0
4.61
HATER BALANCE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CINCHES) IN THE
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.99
0.97
2.42
0.74
4.64
6.61
4.81
3.01
3.70
2.38
0.70
0.66
31.63
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
INTERCEPTION
0.25
0.13
0.69
0.44
0.89
1.20
1.19
0.51
1.17
0.37
0.26
0.24
T.39
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
, SURFACE EVAP.
0.0
0.38
0.73
2.36
3.60
3.83
4.23
3.73
2.38
1.51
0.63
0. 15
23.55
1962
. DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.5-5
0.93
1.08
-1.92
0.21
1.50
-0.97
-1.69
0.03
0.20
-0.20
0.25
0.01
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.28
0.0
0.3*
0.0
1.08
1.19
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.0
0.0
2.96
PERCOIATICN
o.oa
0.0
0.99
0.0
0.0
0.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.88
AET
0.26
0.69
0.88
0.91
1.94
3.68
6.37
4.39
2.71
O.B2
0.74
0.32
24.21
CHANGE IN SK
0.84
-0.25
-0.12
-0.61
0.72
-0.27
-2.76
-2.39
-0.18
1.13
-0.29
-0.13
-4.34
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED"
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.24 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE>-0.48
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 46.76
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES - 37.21
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 40.74
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.38 OR 81.9 I OF ANNUAL
-------
**»*• ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVGR DISPOSAL AREA) - 1963
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.67
0.0
1.22
1.36
0.61
1.84
2.97
2.02
3.62
1.15
0.04
0.20
1S.T1
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0.1S
0.05
0.41
0.13
0.0
0.18
l.U
0.60
1.24
0.28
0.0
0.00
4.21
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
1.12
0.0
2.04
2.27
1.02
3.07
4.96
3.37
6.05
1.92
0.07
0. 34
26.23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
0.02
0.23
1.30
2.41
3.28
4.03
4.37
3.65
2.48
1.66
0.63
0.11
24.17
1963
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL
0.84
-0. 18
0.34
-0.<)1
-2.67
-2.01
-0.28
-1.03
2.3S
-0.23
-0.59
0. 10
-4.25
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0. 19
0.14
0.64
0.60
0.58
0.84
0.82
0.52
o.ao
0.20
0.07
0. 10
5.45
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.01
0.14
0.19
0.0
0.0
0.1 7
0.01
0.54
0.20
0.0
0.0
1.26
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.16
0.85
I. 10
0.58
1.53
3. 16
4.71
3.13
2.55
1.03
0.91
0.20
19.90
CHANGE IN SM
0.45
-0.40
0.16
0.90
-I. 09
-0.93
-0.73
-0.29
2.15
0.49
-0.91
-0.06
-0.25
PERCENT OF WASTEMATER CONTROLLED- 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.10 CHANGE IN SMJH STORAGE--O.14
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 44.02
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES • 38.17
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 42.08
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.94 OR SO.6 S CF ANNUAL
-------
•**•» ANNUAL SUMMARY «»•»*
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1964
NJ
O
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FE9.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.,
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
HAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.01
0.34
0.6)
1.96
0.80
2.77
1.30
2.13
1.67
0.19
0.52
0.25
12.46
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO
0.00
0.0
0.11
0.25
0.0
0.72
0.30
0.25
0.22
0.0
0.00
0.07
1.93
WATER BALANCE 1
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.02
0.57
1.05
3.27
1.33
4.63
2.00
3.55
2.79
0.31
0.86
0.42
20.80
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
. DISPOSAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
INCHES) IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0. It)
0.16
0.68
2.35
3.39
3.77
4.56
3.47
2. 37
1.43
0.50
0.03
22.89
1964
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
-0. 16
0. IS
0.06
-0.14
-2.59
-0.28
-3.06
-1.09
-0.48
-1.24
0.02
0.28
-8.51
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0. 12
0.22
0.32
0. 70
0.58
0.91
0. JO
0.95
0.75
0. 15
0.29
0. 10
5.40
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.39
0.00
0.60
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0.
0.0
0.0
0.99
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.27
0.19
0.32
0.92
1 .68
3.32
3.84
2.11
2.38
0.55
0.53
0.24
16.36
CHANGE IN SH
-0.?7
0.16
0.41
1.26
-0.94
-0.19
-2.14
0.49
-0.34
-0.39
0.04
0.08
-1.85
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED- 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STOKAGE--0.10
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAG£=CHANGE IN SCIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED > 29.94
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES * 37.73
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 40.17
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.35 OR 83.0 3E OF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1965
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
JAN.
FtB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.49
1.88
0.9")
0.69
2.73
4.63
3.25
2.08
2.55
0.12
0.05
0.30
19.77
0.02
1.52
0.18
0.11
1.01
1.30
1.53
0.95
0.62
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.25
WATER BALANCE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
I INCHES) IN THE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
DISPOSAL
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SFPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.82
3.14
1 .66
1 .16
4.56
7. M
5.4?
3.47
4.25
0.20
0.09
0.50
J3.00
IRR IGATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
INTERCEPTION
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
13
37
4)
31
70
31
04
40
65
10
09
19
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
1965
0.03
0.03
0.05
2.37
3.33
3. 70
4.23
3.57
2.24
1.50
0.63
0.24
21.93
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.48
3. 37
1.12
-1.56
0.41
2.23
0.54
-0.53
0.92
-1.38
-0.58
0.06
5.08
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.10
O.I 7
0.95
2.00
0.52
0.03
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.83
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At I
0.22
0.23
0.51
1.4)
l.fll
3.62
5.34
4.66
2.50
0.90
0.75
0.2)
22.22
CHANOt IN SM
-0
1
2
-0
I
0
-1
-1
1
-0
-0
0
1
.09
.50
.22
. 77
.10
.80
.48
.62
.04
.80
. 75
.06
.21
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED-
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS* 0
PACK UN DECEMBER 31 • 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE- 0.0
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 26.26
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES ' 35.23
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 38.45
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES • 32.57 OR 84.7 I OF ANNUAL
-------
•**•• ANNUAL SUMMARY «***»
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1966
K)
to
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.07
I. 11
0.13
0.45
0.10
2.07
2.10
2.29
1.74
0.50
0.04
0.77
11.37
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO
0.0
0.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.79
0.47
0.91
0.60
0.0
0.00
0.0
3.26
WATER BALANCE 1
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.11
1 .86
0.22
0.75
0.16
3.45
3.51
3.83
2.90
0.84
0.07
1.29
18.99
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
. DISPOSAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
INCHES) IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.07
O.?0
1.26
2. 14
3.25
3.84
4.49
3.42
2.32
1.44
0.40
0.01
22.83
1966
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
-0.00
1.41
-1.13
-1.69
-3. 16
-0.98
-1.72
-0.22
0.02
-0.94
-0.36
0. 76
-8.19
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.09
0.20
0.1',
0.37
0. 14
0.47
0. 75
0.50
0.47
0.16
0.07
0.02
3.38
0.0
0.22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.04
O.O6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.36
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.15
0.50
0.50
0.35
1.29
2.42
3.21
3.36
2.38
0.66
0.62
0.19
15.64
CHANGE IN SN
-0.13
0.93
-0.42
0.03
-1.27
0.52
-0.45
-0.07
-0.01
0.02
-0.62
-0.19
-1.66
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED- 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 » 1.27 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE" 1.27
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SCIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 24.81
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN, INCHES - 37.36
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 40.59
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES - 33.18 OR 81.7 t OF ANNUAL
-------
•***« ANNUAL SUMMARY »«*«»
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL ARFAI - 1967
NJ
Co
INFLOWS
OUTFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION FEEDLOF RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL. SURFACE EVAP. DISCHARGE
JAN. 0.21 0.54 0. 0.0 0.07 0.0
FEB. 0.1$ 0.00 0. 0.0 0.22 0.0
MAR. 0.61 0.0 0. 0.0 1.46 0.0
APR. 2. 51 0.55 0. 0.0 2.33 0.0
MAY 1.51 0.04 0. 0.0 2.58 0.0
JUNE 5.88 2.36 0. 0.0 3.6'. 0.0
JULY 1.97 0.26 0. 0.0 4.04 0.0
AUG. 1.59 0.62 0. 0.0 3.43 0.0
SEPT 3.94 1.50 0. 0.0 2.26 0.0
OCT. 0.71 0.0 0. 0.0 1.38 0.0
NOV. 0.24 0.0 0. 0.0 0.48 0.0
DEC. 0.96 0.07 0. 0.0 0.10 0.0
TOT. 20.28 5.93 0. 0.0 21.98 0.0
WATER BALANCE (INCHES) IN THE DISPOSAL AREA - 1967
INPUTS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.35
0.25
1.02
4.19
2.52
9.62
3.29
2.6)
6.57
1.18
0.40
1.61
33.85
IRRIGATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
INTERCEPTION
0.23
0.20
0.37
0.98
0.97
1.16
0.93
0.56
1.01
0.60
0.18
0.25
7.43
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.68
-0.06
-0.84
0.73
-1.03
4.61
-1.81
-1.22
3. 18
-0.68
-0.24
0.93
4.23
OUTPUTS
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.42
0.01
3.04
0.0
0.03
0.78
0.03
0.00
0.0
4.31
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.30
0.20
0.26
1.22
1.44
3.43
5.18
3.07
2.28
0.74
0.84
0.33
20.10
CHANGE IN SM
1.09
-0.15
0.39
i.sr
0.10
2.19
-2.82
-1.81
2.50
-0.19
-0.62
0.63
2.89
PERCENT OF WASTEUATER CONTROLLED'
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.40 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE»-0.87
INPUIS-OUTPUTS-CHANCE IN SNOW STORAGE'CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 13.26
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL E VAPOTRANSPIRAT I CM , INCHES - 36.37
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 39.66
HAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES • J1.4O UR 79.2 J OF ANNUAL
-------
NJ
-O
•*••» ANNUAL SUKKARY •**»•
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1968
INFLOWS
MONTH PRECIPITATION
JAM.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
0.06
0.34
0.04
2.29
1.50
2.56
2. 1 5
5.63
2.65
1.78
0.64
1.0*
21.31
FEEOLOT RUNOFF NO. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.12
0.0
0.12
0.39
0.02
1.14
0.74
2.30
0.92
0.79
0.19
0.0
6.73
MATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.14
0.56
0.06
3.83
2.51
4.31
4.59
9.40
4.43
2.97
1.07
1.74
35.61
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01 SPUSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP
0.02
0. 16
1.21
2.28
2.97
3.83
4.20
3.57
2.38
1.48
0.42
0. 10
22.61
1968
. DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
u.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0. 19
0. IB
-1.05
0.40
-1.44
-0. 11
-0. 71
4. J6
1.19
1.09
0.41
0.94
5.45
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0. 16
0. 19
0.06
0. 79
0.91
0.51
0.91
0.97
0.50
0.29
0.41
0.10
5.79
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.00
1.39
0.00
1.97
0.96
0.80
0. 12
0.0
5.38
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ACT
0.31
0.63
0.02
1.H7
1.39
3.31
3.70
4.99
3.16
1.04
0.52
0.22
21.96
CHANGE IN SK
o.oa
-0.26
-0.82
1.04
0.20
-0.90
-0.02
1.47
-0.19
0.84
0.03
-0.05
1.41
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED'
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 1.47 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE' 1.07
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGES-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 24.97
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATI ON, INCHES * 37.04
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES " 39.92
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 32.54 OR 81.5 t OF ANNUAL
-------
***•* ANNUAL SUMKARY «»*»*
MATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1969
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
PEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APK.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.35
0.92
1.37
1.59
3.92
1.4 I
5.77
0.92
0.95
2.22
0.03
0.37
19.83
FEEOLOT RUNOFF
0.62
0.0
1.37
0.54
1.11
0.20
2.53
0.0
0.10
0.33
0.0
0.04
6.84
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.59
1.54
2.29
2.65
6.55
2.35
9.63
1.54
1.59
3. 71
0.05
0.62
33.11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NO. DISPOSAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES! IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
. SURFACE EVAP.
0.01
0.0
0.54
2.37
3.20
3.66
4.35
3.62
2.51
1.33
0.61
0.09
22.32
1969
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.96
0.92
2.20
-0.25
I. S3
-2.05
3.94
-2.70
-1.45
1.22
-0.58
0.32
4.35
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0. 19
0.37
0.50
0.57
1.08
0. 1?.
0.83
0.64
0.42
0.90
0.05
0.21
6.49
0.02
0.00
0.57
0.24
O.B7
0.0
1.60
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.0
3.51
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.44
1.83
0.16
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.44
AET
0.26
0.39
0.85
I .56
1.73
3.54
6.58
5.48
1.94
0.41
0.87
0.26
23.85
CHANGE IN SN
0.51
0.67
1.55
-0.17
1.04
-2.0?
0.42
-4.58
-0.77
2.J9
-0.87
-0.10
-1.96
PERCENT OF hASTEKATFR CONTROLLED* 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.25 CHANGE (N SNOW STORAGE--1.22
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 45.29
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOIRANSPIRATION, INCHES • 35.26
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 38.74
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 32.42 OR 83.7 « OF ANNUAL
-------
»•*** ANNUAL SUMMARY ««»»•
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1970
NJ
INFLCWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.07
0.03
0.74
1.71
2.40
2. BO
0.60
1.38
4.56
1.19
O.SR
0.15
16.21
FE.EDLOT RUNOFF NO
0.05
0.0
0.01
0.40
0.67
0.99
0.05
0.54
1.99
0.36
0.09
0.0
5.15
HATER BALANCE 1
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.11
0.05
1.24
2.66
4.00
4.67
1.00
2.31
7.62
1.98
0.97
0.25
27.06
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
. DISPOSAL DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
INCHES) IN THE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0. 11
0.47
0.60
2. 17
3.43
3.89
4.3*.
3.84
2.40
1.34
0.44
0.14
23.18
1970
DI SCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VCL.
O.OG
-0.44
0.15
-0.05
-0.37
-0. 10
-3.71
-1.91
4.15
0.21
O.i3
0.01
-1.83
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION
0. 10
0.05
0. 49
0.49
0.81
0. 72
0.29
0.34
0.93
0.41
0.22
0.02
4.87
SURFACE RUNOFF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.48
0.59
0.71
0.0
0.02
1.22
0.15
0.00
0.0
3.16
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AET
0.24
0.30
0.22
1.34
1.69
3.69
3.62
2.08
2.67
0.87
0.71
0.59
18.02
CHANGE IN SN
0.02
-0.30
0.31
0.78
0.91
-0.44
-2.91
-0.12
2.81
0.55
0.0',
-0.45
1.19
PERCENT OF MASTEHATER CONTROLLED" 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 0.08 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE--0.17
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED ' 36.80
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRAT1CN, INCHES « 37.71
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES ' 40.41
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.56 OR 83.1 t OF ANNUAL
-------
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
HATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY UN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREA) - 1971
INFLCViS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.80
1.75
0.71
0.54
5.43
1.98
3.35
0.51
0.72
3.34
1.81
0.64
21.59
FEEOLOT RUNOFF
0.0
0.92
0.90
0.0
2.75
0.65
1.16
0.03
0.02
1.46
0.65
0.20
8.75
HATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
1.33
2.93
1.19
0.90
9.06
3.31
5.60
0.85
1.20
5.58
3.02
1.07
36.04
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NO. DISPOSAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
I INCHES! IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLCWS
. SURFACE EVAP.
0.0
0.15
0.78
2.30
3.09
4.02
4.14
3.66
2.49
1.50
0.44
0.04
22.68
1971
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.80
2.52
0.83
-1.H4
5.08
-1.39
0.38
-3.12
-1.74
3.31
2.02
0.81
7.65
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0. 31
0.36
0.55
0.41
0.89
0.57
1.12
0.32
0.33
0.46
0.39
0.28
5.99
0.0
0.13
0.16
0.0
3.04
0.68
0.51
0.0
0.0
0.86
0.32
0.16
5.86
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.25
0. 18
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.43
AEI
0.24
0.34
0.97
0.95
1.66
3.86
6.22
3.14
1 .08
0.52
0.63
0.44
20.05
CHANGE IN SM
0. 79
0.73
0.96
-0.46
2.22
-1.98
-2.25
-2.61
-0.21
3.75
1.51
0.37
2.79
PERCENT OF HASTEHATER CONTROLLED' 100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 « 0.0 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE--0.08
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOU MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED • 51.76
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, INCHES - 36.C9
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 39.22
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES • 12.66 OR 83.3 I CF ANNUAL
-------
»***» ANNUAL SUMMARY »*»••
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN I f^CHES CVER DISPOSAL AREAI - 19/2
N»
00
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.10
0.26
0.31
1.77
4.30
1.58
2.41
4.72
I. 11
1.58
2.51
0.80
21.46
FEEOLOI RUNOFF NO
0.29
0.08
0.0
0.46
1.29
0.77
0.44
2.19
0.11
0.38
0.85
0.53
7.40
WATER BALANCE 1
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
0.17
0.44
0.52
2.96
7. IB
2.64
4.02
7.88
1.85
2.64
4.19
1.33
35.82
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
. DISPOSAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
INCHES! IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.04
0. 32
1.44
2. 31
3.22
3.94
4.20
3.58
2.47
1.35
0.28
0. 14
23.29
1972
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VCL.
0.35
0.03
-1.12
-0.08
2.38
-1.59
-1.35
3.33
-1.25
0.62
3. OB
1.18
5.57
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.12
0.13
0.22
0.52
1.11
0.37
0.35
O.B1
0.40
0.61
0.56
0.22
5.92
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.33
1 .96
0.08
0.0
1.50
0.12
0.18
0.91
0.00
5.10
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.62
0,19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.81
AET
0.27
0.69
0.66
0.61
1.72
3.77
6.09
4.85
2.89
0.72
0.40
0.14
22.80
CHANGE IN SH
-0.23
-0.37
-0. 36
1.50
0.77
-1.77
-2.92
0.71
-1.55
1.13
2.31
0.34
-0.44
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED-
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS' 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 « 0.63 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE" 0.63
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE=CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED = 62.63
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATICN. INCHES - 36.48
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION. INCHES > 40.10
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 32.28 OR BO.5 t CF ANNUAL
-------
VC
***** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****
WATER ACCOUNT FOR STORAGE FACILITY (IN INCHES OVER DISPOSAL AREAI - 1973
INFLOWS
MONTH
JAM.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
TOT.
PRECIPITATION
0.77
0.33
4.05
1.58
2. 80
1.06
5.15
1.00
6.67
3.24
0.63
1.75
29.03
FEEOLOT RUNOFF
0.03
0.08
1.27
0.20
0.79
0.1B
2.40
0.02
3.24
2.07
0.05
0.22
10.55
WATER BALANCE
INPUTS
PRECIPITATION IRRIGATION
1.29
0.55
6.76
2.64
4.67
1.77
8.60
1.67
11.14
5.41
1.05
2.92
48.47
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NO. DISPOSAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(INCHES) IN
DAYS DISPOSAL VOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE DISPOSAL AREA -
OUTFLOWS
SURFACE EVAP.
0.15
0.31
1.54
2.24
3. 19
4.05
4.35
3.79
2.35
1.55
0.64
0.05
24.22
1973
DISCHARGE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHANGE IN VOL.
0.65
0.10
3.77
-C.46
0.40
-2.81
3.21
-2.78
7.57
3.76
0.04
1.92
15.37
OUTPUTS
INTERCEPTION SURFACE RUNOFF
0.43
0.20
1. 17
0.83
0. 78
0.54
0. 74
0.57
1.28
0. 37
0.23
0.16
7.30
0.06
0.01
1.70
U.08
1.05
0.18
1.16
0.0
3.39
3.29
0.0
0.00
10.92
PERCOLATION
0.0
0.0
1.118
0.40
1. 12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.41
AET
0.22
0.55
1.18
1.95
1.68
3.8)
6.44
4.54
2.42
1.08
0.66
0.32
24.89
CHANGE IN SM
1.04
-0.04
0.84
-0.62
0.03
-2.79
0.25
-3.44
4.05
0.67
0.16
0.33
0.48
PERCENT OF WASTEWATER CONTROLLED'
100.00
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL DAYS- 0
PACK ON DECEMBER 31 - 2.10 CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE- 1.48
INPUTS-OUTPUTS-CHANGE IN SNOW STORAGE-CHANGE IN SOIL MOISTURE
PERCENT OF MAXIMUM POND VOLUME REQUIRED - 99.39
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOIRANSPIRATICN, INCHES - 36.80
ESTIMATED LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES » 41.08
MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 32.71 OR 79.6 I OF ANNUAL
-------
STATION! BELLEVILLE. KANSAS 19*9 TO IS73
CRITICAL EVENT- s.io INCHES
FEEOLOT AREA- 40.00 ACRES
POND VARIABLES:
(A| BASE DIMENSION— TOO.00 FEET BY 2800.00 FEET
IB) SIDE SLOPE— RUN: RISE - 3.0 : I
(C) PAX MUM DEPTH— 6.00 FEET
(0) MAXIMUM POND VOLUME— 3344.52 ACRE-INCHES
IE) DIRECT RECEIVING AREA (FOR PRECIPITATION) — 47.92 ACRES
DISPOSAL AREA VARIABLES:
IA) DISPOSAL AREA— 80.00 ACRES
IB) CROP— CORN
(C) SOIL TYPE— 5 (SCS) SOIL TYPE
10) DISPOSAL RATE— 0.50 INCHES/DAY ON DISPOSAL DAYS
IE) IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT— IRRIGATION BELOW 0.0 AVAILABLE MOISTURE
*•*** FINAL SUMMARY *4«»«
METEOROLOGICAL SUMMARY
AVERAGE ANNUAL LAKE EVAPORATION- 40.55 INCHES
AVERAGE MAY - OCTOBER LAKE EVAPORATION, INCHES - 33.24 OR 82.0 X OF ANNUAL
-------
AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION* 30.03 INCHES
AVERAGE ANNUAL POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION' 37.12 INCHES
PRECIPITATION RANGE" 32.57 INCHES (FROM A LCU GF IS.90 INCHES TO A HIGH OF 48.47 INCHES)
SUMMARY OF POND OPERATIONS
NO. OF YEARS HAVING A DISCHARGE' 0
AVERAGE NO. OF DISCHARGES / YEAR HAVING A DISCHARGE- 0.0
AVERAGE DISCHARGED 0.0 ACRE-INCHES
AVERAGE PERCENT OF MASTEWATER CONTROLLED'100.00
TOTAL DISCHARGE VOLUME- 0.0 ACRE-INCHES
TOTAL NO. OF DISCHARGES' 0.
MAXIMUM DISCHARGE' 0.0 ACRE-INCHES
SUMMARY OF DISPOSAL AREA
AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPTH OF WASTEMATER APPLIED' 0.0 INCHES OVER ENTIRE DISPOSAL AREA
M AVERAGE ANNUAL DISPOSAL AREA RUNOFF' 3.55 INCHES
U)
M AVERAGE ANNUAL DISPOSAL AREA PERCOLATION' 0.51 INCHES
AVERAGE ANNUAL NO. OF DISPOSAL DAYS- 0.0
-------
APPENDIX C
REGRESSION ANALYSES
Many climatological factors contribute to the retention pond design for
either irrigation or pure evaporation disposal. Stepwise deletion multiple
regressions were run with various combinations and transformations of several
climatological variables in order to isolate the most important variables.
The design equations (Figures 6 and 7) were eventually chosen on the basis of
degree of correlation, simplicity of use, and ease of obtaining the climato-
logical variable or variables in question. Table C-l is a list of the clima-
tological variables used in the equations. The availability of the data is an
important factor. Independent variables that are derived from the computer
model are less desirable than those that are derived from readily available
published information.
TABLE C-l. GLOSSARY OF CLIMATOLOGICAL VARIABLES USED IN
REGRESSION ANALYSES
Variable
name
Definition
PONVOL Pond volume for 100 percent control for 40-acre feedlot under
standard conditions (acre-inches). Dependent variable in regres
sion for irrigation disposal. (Fig. 5 and 6).
PV40 Pond volume for 100 percent control for 40-acre feedlot under
standard conditions per acre of feedlot (ac-in/ac). Dependent
variable in regression for irrigation disposal.
SURF Pond surface area for 40-acres feedlot under standard conditions
(acres). Primary dependent variable for evaporation disposal.
(Fig. 7).
P25 25 year-24 hour storm (inches) (Fig. 5).
MD Moisture deficit = Mean annual evaporation—mean annual precipita-
tion (inches) (Fig. 6 and 7).
RAIN Mean annual precipitation (inches)
M02 Sum of mean monthly precipitation for the two consecutive months
having the largest total rainfall (inches)
EVAP Mean annual lake evaporation
(continued)
132
-------
Variable
name
MP2CM
CI
PREVAP
CI1
CI2
CI3
CI4
TABLE C-l (Continued)
Definition
Maximum precipitation for two consecutive months for simulation
period.
Transformed variable = MD/P25 (inches/inch)
Transformed variable = RAIN/EVAP (Inches/inch)
Transformed variable = Log[ (MD+20)/P25]
Transformed variable = PREVAP * P25 (inches)
Transformed variable = (MD/P25)* PREVAP (inches)
Transformed variable = P25/PREVAP (inches/inch)
Table C-2 contains a list of all regressions performed. Equations 15a
and 26 were chose as best representing the desired result for simplified
design for irrigation disposal and evaporation, respectively. Unless other-
wise noted, the regressions are significant at the 5 percent level.
133
-------
TABLE C-2. LIST OF STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15a.
15b.
15c.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Equation
Log PV40 = 0.956 + 0.0605 P25 - 0.0134 MD
Log PV40 = 1.290 - 0.0608 CI
PV40 = f(P25,MD,PREVAP)
Log PV40 = 0.806 + 0.0792 P25 - 0.0118 MD
Log PV40 = 0.972 + 0.0576 P25 - 0.0127 MD
- 0.00244 CI
Log PV40 = 0.944 + 0.0650 P25 - 0.0143 MD
Log PV40 = 1.861 - 1.040 CI1
Log PV40 = 0.046 - 0.0464 CI
PONVOL = 566.2 + 57.0 P25 - 20.8 MD + 28.1 CI
Log PV40 = 1.243 - 0.0197 CI4
PONVOL = 747.5 + 22.6 P25 - 13.8 MD
Log PV40 = 1.189 - 0.176 CI3
Log PV40 = 0.358 + 0.973 PREVAP
Log PV40 = 1.246 - 0.0486 CI
Log PONVOL = 2.910 - 0.0150 MD
Log PONVOL = 1.811 + 0.148 P25
Log PONVOL = 4.373 - 0.0607 (PREVAP)"
Log SURF = -0.508 + 0.153 P25 + 2.840 PREVAP
- 0.191 CI2
Log SURF = 0.275 + 0.0511 P25 - 0.0174 CI +
+ 1.478 PREVAP
Log SURF = -0.0682 - 0.0267 MP2CM + 1.622
PREVAP
Log SURF = 1.061 + 0.116 P25 - 0.0185 MD
Log SURF = 0.556 - 0.0444 MD + 0.0357 EVAP
Log SURF = 1.277 + 0.102 P25 - 0.0160 MD
- 0.0954 CI2 - 0.110 CI3
Log SURF = 1.595 - 0.0670 CI
Log SURF = 1.814 - 0.0234 MD
Log SURF - -0.137 + 0.228 P25
Log SURF = 1.507 - 0.228 CI3
Log SURF = 0.091 + 2.166 PREVAP
2
R
0.850
0.851
—
0.884
0.850
0.850
0.829
0.793
0.509
0.503
0.494
0.483
0.781
0.785
0.803
0.326
0.518
0.964
0.962
0.960
0.929
0.940
0.905
0.833
0.826
0.542
0.140
0.916
Comment
Las Vegas excluded
PREVAP not signifi-
cant. Backward elimi
nation results in
Eq. (1)
Wooster, Ohio
excluded
CI not significant
Las Vegas excluded
Wooster excluded
P25 and CI not
significant
P25 not significant
Used in Fig. 6
Used in Fig. 5
Used in Fig. 7
134
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE-OF-THE-ART OF MODELLING
FEEDLOT RUNOFF QUALITY
by
Larry E. Erickson
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this work is to summarize the state-of-the-art in modeling
water quality of feedlot runoff, retention basin effluent, and runoff from
fields where effluent has been applied. Available water quality models and
data are reviewed. Some models for specific water quality variables are
available for modelling feedlot runoff, runoff from fields, and transport
through soils; however, further modelling and additional data are needed to
develop useful water quality models for management and control of feedlot
runoff.
135
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract 135
Introduction 137
Conclusions 138
State-of-the-Art Review 139
Building Water Quality Models for Management and
Control of Feedlot Runoff 146
References 148
136
-------
INTRODUCTION
Continuous watershed modelling of feedlot runoff, retention basin opera-
tion, and land disposal (Anschutz, et al., 1977, Wensink and Miner, 1976,
Zovne, et al., 1977) has provided valuable information which can be useful in
both the design and management of retention basins and associated facilities
for feedlot runoff. The water quality of feedlot runoff, retention basin
effluent, and runoff from agricultural lands where the effluent is distributed
is also important and should be considered in feedlot runoff management and
control. The purpose of this work is to summarize the state-of-the-art in
modelling the water quality of feedlot runoff, retention basin effluent, and
runoff where effluent has been applied. Both groundwater and stream water
quality are to be considered. A general goal of this work is to assemble
comprehensive information that can be used in efforts to include water quality
in continuous watershed modelling of feedlot runoff.
Five specialists (S. Y. Chiu, James Davidson, L. T. Fan, J. R. Miner, and
William Powers) were asked to prepare working papers on the state-of-the-art
in their area of water quality specialization. On December 13 and 14, 1976, a
meeting of the specialists and Lynn Shuyler, Jerome Zovne, James Koelliker,
and L. E. Erickson was held. The state-of-the-art was reviewed and some of
the problems associated with feedlot runoff water quality modelling were
identified and discussed.
137
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable effort has been devoted to the characterization of runoff
from cattle feedlots; however, the water quality of runoff shows great vari-
ability. The chemical and biochemical reactions which occur on the feedlot
surface, the intensity of the rainfall, the soil temperature, and the lot
moisture condition prior to the rainfall event all appear to influence the
water quality of runoff. The slope of the lot is also important.
Models have been developed to predict the chemical oxygen demand and the
Kjeldahl nitrogen in runoff from cattle feedlots. Further work to extend this
modelling to include other variables such as the various forms of nitrogen is
needed.
Water quality in retention ponds depends upon the quality of the feedlot
runoff which enters, sedimentation, evaporation, ammonia desorption, and the
chemical and biochemical transformations which occur in the basin. Anaerobic
conditions are present in most of the basin. The forms of nitrogen in the
basin are important because the ammonium ion is absorbed by soil while the
nitrate ion has a tendencey to remain in solution. Reduction in biochemical
oxygen demand is also important because soluble organic materials can be
transported from the land where basin effluent is distributed. Mathematical
models for the various forms of nitrogen and the biochemical oxygen demand
need to be developed; very little attention has been directed to modelling the
retention basin.
Dissolved solids also need to be modelled in the retention basin. Evapo-
ration significantly affects the concentration of dissolved solids.
Some results have been reported on the water quality of runoff from non-
point sources such as fields where retention basin effluent has been applied.
The suspended solids or sediment which is washed from the field is responsible
for a significant portion of the pollutants from non-point sources which enter
streams. Consideration should be given to the quality of the field cover
where retention basin effluent is applied.
Chronic wet periods where a series of rainfall events follow each other
closely must be considered in the management of water quality associated with
feedlot runoff. Further research is needed to determine the best management
practice under these conditions.
Models of the movement of inorganic ions in soils are available. In some
areas of the country consideration must be given to the effect upon ground-
water of distributing retention basin effluent onto land; however, in many
locations this is not a problem.
138
-------
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
Water quality aspects of feedlot runoff can be divided geographically
into four parts: the feedlot and runoff from it, the retention basin and
effluent from it, the field surface where effluent is distributed, and the
region below the soil surface where feedlot effluents are present. Water
quality is important because of possible pollution of streams and groundwater,
but also because of the need to know what is being distributed to the land
surface.
Stream water quality models can be used to determine the effects on
stream water quality of runoff from fields where retention basin effluents
have been distributed. This field runoff may be from rainfall events or
during chronic wet periods as a result of the effluent distribution itself.
FEEDLOT RUNOFF
Runoff from cattle feedlots contains relatively high concentrations of
several water pollutants. Tables D-l and D-2 show some of the results which
are available. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nitrogen concetrations,
suspended solids, and dissolved solids are some of the more important water
quality variables to consider in feedlot runoff management. The forms of the
nitrogen should also be considered. Biochemical oxygen demand is frequently
above one gram per liter and will significantly affect the water quality of
any streams it is allowed to enter. Total nitrogen concentrations frequently
exceed 100 mg/1 in feedlot runoff. The ultimate fate of this nitrogen must be
considered because of its potential for surface water and groundwater pollu-
tion when in the nitrate form. Suspended solids frequently have a biochemical
oxygen demand and adsorbed nitrogen compounds associated with them. Suspended
solids can affect the properties of soils. Concentrations in feedlot runoff
frequently exceed one gram per liter. Dissolved solids in feedlot runoff can
affect crop yields when effluents with high salt concentrations are distri-
buted onto agricultural land. Dissolved solids concentrations in feedlot
runoff depend on the salt in the ration; values above one gram per liter are
fairly common.
Because of the large number of variables which affect the quality of
feedlot runoff, large variations in values have been reported. Feed ration,
temperature, anticedant moisture, feedlot surface and slope, and rainfall
duration and intensity are some of the important variables which affect the
water quality of feedlot runoff. Because of the large number of variables
which affect feedlot runoff and the expense and difficulty of conducting
experiments, only relatively simple models have been reported for predicting
feedlot runoff water quality. Miner et al. (1966) and Manges et al. (1975)
have reported correlations for predicting chemical oxygen demand of feedlot
runoff. Miner, et al. (1966) included rainfall rate, temperature, and lot
moisture in their work. Manges et al. (1975) also included antecedant mois-
ture and temperature; however, they also included antecedant wind travel.
Miner et al. (1966) also developed a model for predicting Kjeldahl nitrogen in
feedlot runoff.
139
-------
TABLE D-l. CATTLE FEEDLOT RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS, mg/1 (Loehr, 1974)
Location
Nebraska
snowmelt
mean
range
Rainfall
mean
range
T°i^ V0l^le COD BOE
solids solids
41,000
14,100-77,000
3,100
1,300-8,200
1 Total N
2,100
190-6,530
920
11-8,590
Ammonia N
780
6-2,020
140
2-1,240
Total P
290
5-920
360
4,520
Ref.
McCalla, et al. ,
(1972)
McCalla, et al.,
(1972)
Texas
dirt lot
mean
range
concrete lot
mean
range
9,500 1,460 128 56
2,900-28,000 1,010-2,200 9-285 2-85
21,500 8,000 500 350
8,400-32,800 3,300-12,700 70-1,070 33-775
Wells, et al.,
(1970)
Wells, et al.,
(1970)
Colorado
Kansas
Texas
10,000-25,000
3,100-28,880
100-7,000 300-6,000
4,000-40,000 1,000-11,000 200-450
1,440-16,320 1,075-3,450 4-173
Norton & Hansen
(1969)
Loehr (1970)
Kreis, et al.,
(1972)
-------
TABLE D-2. QUALITY OF RUNOFF FROM STEEP NON-PAVED CATTLE FEEDLOTS (HAMILTON STANDARD,
1973)
ANIMAL TYPE:
ANIMAL WEIGHT:
TYPE OF WASTE:
Beef Cattle
800 Ibs avg.
Dirt-Steep Slope-Runoff
AREA: 200 ft /head
Ib/head/inch Runoff
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Minimum
-
1186.0
9.57
4.78
1.20
5.1
1.20
3.59
2.39
0.023
0
0
0.0115
0.0230
0.0805
0.0805
Average
1196.0
1186.0
9.57
4.54
2.99
7.6
1.79
4.19
5.03
0.184
0.069
0.0345
0.104
0.403
0.115
0.276
Maximum
-
1190.0
17.9
9.57
5.98
9.4
7.18
35.9
8.97
1.31
0.598
0.0265
0.253
1.04
0.138
0.805
Minimum
-
982,750
9,200
4,370
1,150
1,150
3,450
2,300
23
0
0
16
23
81
75
PPM
Average
-
990,800
9,200
4,600
2,875
1,725
4,025
4,830
173
69
29
92
391
109
265
Maximum
-
990,800
17,250
9,200
5,750
5,750
23,000
8,625
1,265
575
138
230
1,035
138
805
-------
During rainfall events, feedlot runoff concentrations change with time.
Models which consider the dynamic behavior of water quality variables during
rainfall events have also been reported (Miner et al., 1967, Kang, et al.,
1970).
Models for predicting the concentrations of nitrate, organic and ammonium
nitrogen, dissolved solids, and suspended solids have not been reported.
Stone, et al. (1975) have investigated the changes with time which occur when
manure is aged at various moisture and temperature conditions. They found
that ammonium nitrogen decreased by as much as 35 percent with aging and that
the mean rate of change increased with temperature and moisture content.
However, they concluded that no significant changes occurred in total or
protein nitrogen during the 10 to 20 day test periods and that the ammonium
nitrogen was only 3 to 4 percent of the total nitrogen. Table 1 shows that
ammonium nitrogen in feedlot runoff is a considerably larger percentage than
this.
Under warm summer conditions higher concentrations of nitrate nitrogen
have been observed, especially when relatively dry long conditions are en-
countered (Wells et al., 1972). Nitrate nitrogen is produced biologically
under aerobic conditions.
Miner (1976) has proposed another model for predicting the water quality
variables in feedlot runoff. The model is similar to that reported previously
by Miner, et al. (1966); however, the new model includes additional influen-
cing factors.
Data available for modelling feedlot runoff have been collected by a
number of workers. In addition to the work cited in Tables D-l and D-2, there
are studies reported by Gilbertson et al. (1971), Miner (1967), Texas Tech
University (1971), Manges et al. (1975), and Clark et al. (1975).
RETENTION BASIN
Feedlot runoff must be collected in a reservoir of retention basin be-
cause of water quality considerations. Anaerobic conditions usually prevail
in these retention basins. The degree to which anaerobic microbiological
transformations occur will depend upon temperature. Under winter conditions
with temperatures at near 0°C, no significant biological treatment occurs;
however, under warm summer conditions biological processes are important.
Some of the processes which occur in retention ponds include evaporation,
anaerobic digestion, ammonia desorption, and sedimentation. Evaporation of
water leads to increased concentrations of dissolved solids. Evaporation
should be considered in modelling both retention basin water quality and quan-
tity. Anerobic microbiological processes result in organic nitrogen being
converted to ammonium nitrogen (mineralization) and nitrate nitrogen being
converted to nitrogen gases (denitrification). Some of the organic carbon
will be oxidized and provide energy for these processes. Whenever anaerobic
microbiological growth occurs, new cell mass is synthesized and some nitrogen
142
-------
is immobilized or converted to organic nitrogen; however, in feedlot runoff
retention basins the rate of mineralization should exceed the rate of immobi-
lization. The net results of these anaerobic processes should be a reduction
in biochemical oxygen demand and a reduction in total nitrogen.
The organic nitrogen which is converted to ammonium and to ammonia can be
lost to the atmosphere through ammonia desorption. The equilibrium distribu-
tion of ammonia and ammonium in the aqueous phase depends upon pH. As pH
increases, the fraction of ammonia increases; thus, rates of desorption of
ammonia will increase as pH increases. Koelliker and Miner (1973) have inves-
tigated the desorption of ammonia under anaerobic conditions for swine la-
goons. They point out that as much as 65 percent of the nitrogen added to a
swine lagoon may be desorbed to the air.
Mathematical models for water quality in retention basins where cattle
feedlot runoff is contained have received very little attention (Miner, 1976).
Since the processes which occur in these retention basins are similar to other
anaerobic processes, it should be possible to utilize many of the results of
modeling related anaerobic processes in developing models for these retention
basins. Some experimental data on the water quality in retention basins is
available (Manges et al. 1975, Dickey and Vanderholm, 1976, Gilbertson, et
al., 1971, Linderman and Ellis, 1975). Further experimental work would be
desirable as additional data (especially time series data) would be useful in
testing the adequacy of mathematical models which may be developed.
The pH in the retention basin is an important variable for both anaerobic
digestion and ammonia desorption. The organic acids produced during anaerobic
digestion tend to lower pH while ammonia losses to the atmosphere tend to
increase pH. Models for pH in anaerobic digestion have been developed by
Andrews and coworkers (Andrews and Graef, 1971, Andrews, 1969).
The temperature of the retention basin can be modeled using an energy
balance. Retention basin temperature would be expected to be related to soil
temperature and recent wet and dry bulb air temperatures. Appropriate temp-
erature data should be collected when experimental work is carried out.
When effluents from retention basins are distributed onto land, the
volatilization of ammonia should be considered. The loss of ammonia to the
atmosphere will depend upon pH and the method of application. Models for
ammonia volatilization during spray applications can be developed. Moisture
losses during spraying may also need to be included in the model.
FIELD SURFACE
Runoff from cattle feedlots and effluent from retention basins can be
distributed onto agricultural land. Runoff from field surfaces where feedlot
runoff or retention basins effluents have been distributed may negatively
affect stream water quality. Research on the water quality of runoff from
fields where feedlot runoff or basin effluent have been applied is in its
infancy. Very little experimental data is available, and further work is
needed.
143
-------
Some research has been completed on water quality modelling from non-
point sources (Chiu, et al., 1973, McElroy, et al., 1976, Donigian and Craw-
ford, 1975, and Donigian and Crawford, 1976). In many of the models, sediment
is used as the indicator of other pollutants. Sediment is selected as a
measure of other pollutants because it is the major constituent of contami-
nents from agricultural land. Since many pollutants are adsorbed to sediment,
it is logical to correlate concentrations of these materials to sediment.
Available data indicates that this procedure can be used successfully for
nonsoluble and partially soluble pollutants; however, highly soluble pollu-
tants may demonstrate significant deviations from simulated values (Donigian
and Crawford, 1976).
Positive ions such as the ammonium ion are adsorbed to soil particles.
Adsorption should be considered in modeling runoff from fields where feedlot
runoff or retention basin effluent has been applied. Oxidizable organic
wastes (BOD), suspended solids, microorganisms, and ammonium nitrogen may be
adequately modeled using sediment loss as a measure of pollutant strength in
runoff from fields where effluents have been distributed; however, further
data under conditions where feedlot runoff and effluents from retention basins
have been distributed onto agricultural lands are needed. Distribution of
basin effluents onto land affects soil moisture and nutrient concentrations at
the soil surface. Both the quantity and quality of runoff from rainfall which
closely follows effluent distribution will be affected by the distribution.
Soil moisture is included in the hydrological model; however, models for the
transient changes in nutrient concentrations at the soil surface are not well
developed. Some of the models reviewed by Davidson (1976) for transformations
in the soil may be used to model the nitrogen transformations which occur on
the soil surface. Since nitrate nitrogen is not strongly adsorbed to soil
particles, other models may be needed for it. It may be a greater pollution
hazard when it is applied to land; however, because of the anaerobic condi-
tions present in retention basins, nitrate nitrogen should not be present in
high concentrations in most retention ponds. Furthermore, highest nitrate
concentrations in feedlot runoff appear to occur in the warm summer months
when feedlot conditions are relatively dry, and when retention pond biological
activity should be great enough for denitrification to occur.
Sediment flows are significantly affected by ground cover and soil con-
servation practices. The distribution of retention basin effluents onto
pasture lands with good ground cover may have very little impact on stream
water quality. Because of adsorption, it may be an acceptable management
practice to distribute retention basin effluents onto pasture land during
chronic wet periods. Further studies are needed to measure the water quality
effects of runoff from field surfaces where retention basin effluent has been
distributed.
Sediment transport has been modelled using the Universal Soil Loss Equa-
tion (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965), the Agricultural Chemical Transport Model
(ACTMO) (Frere et al., 1975), a model developed by Negev (1967), and other
models reviewed by (Donigian and Crawford, 1976 and Chiu et al., 1973).
Fan (1976) and Chiu (1976) have reviewed the available water quality
models for nonpoint source runoff. Some attention has been given to the water
144
-------
quality of runoff where animal wastes have been applied (Manges et al., 1975);
however, much less attention has been given to runoff from fields where liquid
effluents from retention basins have been distributed.
MOVEMENT IN SOILS
Pollution of groundwater through application of retention basin effluent
to land is of concern in some areas. The water quality of return flows from
tile drained land is another concern. Nutrient and salt concentrations in
soils also affect the productivity of the soil. Considerable research on the
movement of nitrogen compounds, salts and other substances in soils has been
reported; however, because of the complexity of some of the models and the
large number of water quality variables further model evaluation is needed for
some models. Hornsby (1973) has reviewed the models used to predict the
movement of salts in soils.
Recently, Shaffer, Ribbins, and Huntly (1976) developed a model for water
quality of irrigation return flows. This model is referred to as the United
States Bureau of Reclamation (USER) model, and it considers calcium, sodium,
magnesium, bicarbonate, carbonate, chloride, and sulfate. This model can
probably be extended to fields where effluents from feedlots and retention
ponds are distributed; however, it would be desirable to include potassium in
the extended model. The model assumes that flow is two dimensional and inde-
pendent of water quality. Powers (1976) has reviewed this model and its
extension to fields where retention basin effluents have been distributed.
Simulation models for nitrogen transformations and movement in soils have
been reviewed by Davidson (1976). Models for simulation of nitrogen mineral-
ization, immobilization, nitrification, and denitrification are presented and
discussed. Transport models for water soluble nitrogen forms (nitrates and
ammonium nitrogen) are also presented.
Mineralization (microbiological transformation of organic nitrogen to
ammonium) and immobilization (microbial conversion of inorganic nitrogen to
organic forms) may both occur at the same time. Available energy, estimated
from organic carbon and nitrogen ratio, determines which of the processes will
dominate. Hagin and Amberger (1974) have developed a model to determine if
mineralization or immobilization would occur following a plant residue appli-
cation. The simulation procedures of Hagin and Amberger (1974), Beck and
Frissel (1973), and Browder and Volk (1977) for mineralization and immobili-
zation can be extended to fields where effluents from feedlots and retention
basins have been distributed.
A first order rate equation has been used by Mehran and Tanji (1974),
Hagin and Amberger (1974), Beck and Frissel (1973), and Misra et al. (1974) to
describe the nitrification of ammonia to nitrate nitrogen. Hagin and Amberger
(1974) and Beck and Frissel have included pH, temperature, and soil-water
content in their models.
Models for dentrification (conversion of nitrate to nitrite and volatile
gases, NO, N2, and NO,,) have been developed by Hagin and Amberger (1974),
145
-------
Mehran and Tanji (1974) and others (Davidson, 1976). Both first order and
zero order rates have been observed; however, this is to be expected. Enzyme
kinetic and microbial growth models can be used under these conditions (Aiba
et al., 1973).
Mathematical models for nitrogen transport in soils are available (War-
rick et al., 1971, Kirda et al., 1973, Selim et al., 1977). Adsorption-
desorption characteristics of ammonium are considered using equilibrium ad-
sorption isotherms such as the Freundlich and Langmuir equations. Both flow
and diffusion are included in some of the models (Davidson, 1976). Transport
of ammonium and nitrate nitrogen is considered while the organic nitrogen is
assumed to be fixed in position. Mineralization, immobilization, nitrifica-
tion, and dentrification are also included.
The effects on the soil when effluents from feedlot runoff retention
basins are distributed onto land must be considered in developing management
practices. Powers et al. (1975) has recently reviewed the effects of land
application of animal wastes.
STREAM WATER QUALITY
Stream water quality models have been reviewed by Fan (1976). Hydraulic
models and water quality models for biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved
oxygen, and temperature are reviewed for flowing streams. Water quality
models for lakes and reservoirs are also reviewed. In order to determine the
water quality effects of nonpoint source runoff from land where retention
basin effluents have been distributed, the runoff water quality will need to
be used as an input to the stream water quality model. The emphasis in stream
water quality modeling has been directed toward dissolved oxygen and biochem-
ical oxygen demand. It may be necessary to include some of the forms of
nitrogen in stream water quality models when runoff from fields with effluent
distributions is examined. Some models which include nitrate and ammonium
nitrogen are available (Shepherd and Finnemore, 1974 and Finnemore and Shep-
herd, 1974).
BUILDING WATER QUALITY MODELS FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF
Model development procedures for feedlot runoff water quality management
and control have been reviewed by Fan (1976). The sequential mechanistic
model building procedure (Box and Hill, 1967) will permit full use of avail-
able data and existing models and also allow effective utilization of new data
as it becomes available.
Water quality modeling for runoff from cattle feedlots should begin with
the models of Miner et al. (1966) and Manges et al. (1975) and the proposed
models of Miner (1976). Models should be developed for biochemical oxygen
demand, total nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen, suspended
solids, and dissolved solids.
146
-------
Water quality models for retention basins should include evaporation,
anaerobic digestion, ammonia desorption, sedimentation as well as inflow and
outflow. A transient model which includes biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen
(organic, ammonium, and nitrate forms) suspended solids, and dissolved solids
should be developed. Important variables such as pH and temperature should be
included in the model. Complete mixing of the dissolved substances should be
assumed in the initial model. Reduction in biochemical oxygen demand, miner-
alization and denitrification should be included in the model. A mass trans-
fer model for ammonia desorption is also needed. Chemical equilibrium can
probably be assumed between ammonia and ammonium; however, the effects of pH
and temperature on the equilibrium relationship should be incorporated.
Experiments should be designed and carried out to test the model which is
developed.
A model should be developed for volatilization of ammonia during land
applications of effluents. Spray applications especially may contribute to
ammonia desorption. A useful model can probably be developed using presently
available information (Bird, et al., 1960, Koelliker and Miner, 1973).
Existing nonpoint source water quality models can be exploited in model-
ling runoff from fields where retention basin effluents have been applied. A
sediment transport model and a model for dissolved nutrients should be coupled
to the hydrological model. For example, ACTMO can be used to model sediment
transport. The model for dissolved nutrients such as nitrates should include
important transformation rate processes and adsorption-desorption processes.
Because of variations in soil, cropping practices, and environmental vari-
ables, there is a wide range of field applications to consider. Some atten-
tion should be directed to the water quality modelling of nonpoint source
runoff from land under chronic wet conditions. The water quality effects of
distributing retention basin effluents onto land under these conditions need
to be known. Both the quality of runoff and the ability to distribute basin
effluent without having runoff are of interest. Soil cover and field condi-
tions should be considered.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation model (USBR model) of Shaffer et
al. (1976) for modelling salts in soils should be extended by including
potassium and adapted to applications of retention basin effluents onto agri-
cultural land. Nitrogen transformations and transport in soils can be modeled
using models described by Davidson (1976). Appropriate experiments to evalu-
ate and improve the proposed models are needed.
The models described above are suggested as a starting point for the
model building effort required to develop the water quality models needed for
feedlot runoff water quality management and control. The sequential mecha-
nistic model building procedure described by Fan (1976) can be followed until
adequate models are obtained.
After the basic model is developed the model can be extended to include
runoff due to snow melt and other abnormal events which are important in some
locations.
147
-------
REFERENCES
Aiba, Shuichi, et al. 1973. Biochemical Engineering. Academic Press, New
York, N.Y. 434 pp.
Andrews, J. F. 1969. Dynamic Model of the Anaerobic Digestion Process. J.
San. Eng. Div. ASCE 95^, SAI, 95.
Andrews, J. F. and S. P. Graef. 1971. Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of the
Anaerobic Digestion Process. In Anaerogic Biological Treatment Pro-
cesses, Advances in Chemistry, No. 105, American Chemical Society,
N.Y., N.Y., 126.
Anschutz, J. A., et al. 1977. Continuous Watershed Modeling of Wastewater
Storage and Land Application to Improve Design Parameters. In Land as a
*Waste Management Alternative, Proceedings of the 1976 Cornell Agricul-
tural Waste Management Conference, Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann
Arbor, MI.
Beek, J., and M. J. Frissell. 1973. Simulation of nitrogen behavior in
soils. Pudoc, Wageningen. 67 pp.
Bird, R. B., et al. 1960. Transport Phenomena. Wiley, New York, N.Y. 780
pp.
Box, G. E. P. and W. J. Hill. 1967. Discrimination Among Mechanistic Models.
Technometries, 4:57.
Browder, J., and B. G. Volk. 1977. Systems model of carbon transformations
in soil subsidence. (Submitted to J. of Applied Ecology).
Chiu, S. Y., et al. 1973. Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature
and Extent of Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants. EPA-430/9-73-014, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C. 261 pp.
Chiu, S. Y. 1976. Review of Nonpoint Source Pollutant Models Relative to
Characterization of Feedlot Runoff. Working paper for this EPA project
(EPA Project No. R803797-01-0). 24 pp.
Clark, R. N., et al. 1975. Analysis of Runoff from Southern Great Plains
Feedlots Trans. A.S.A.E. 18:319.
Davidson, J. M. 1976. Simulation Procedures for Nitrogen Transformations and
Movement in Soils. Working paper for this EPA Project (EPA Project No.
R803797-01-0). 24 pp.
148
-------
Dickey, E. C. and D. H. Vanderholm. 1976. Final Report: Feedlot Runoff
Research Program. Agricultural Engineering Department, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Illinois Institute for Environmental
Quality Doc. No. 76/08. 56 pp.
Donigian, A. S., Jr., and N. H. Crawford. 1975. Modeling Pesticides and
Nutrients on Agricultural Lands. EPA-600/2-76-043, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia.
Donigian, A. S., Jr., and N. H. Crawford. 1976. Modeling Nonpoint Pollution
from the Land Surface. EPA-600/3-76-083, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Athens, Georgia. 280 pp.
Fan, L. T. 1976. Water Quality Modeling for Feedlot Runoff Management and
Control - A Working Paper on Mathematical Models, Solution Techniques,
Data Sources, and Data Requirements Working Paper for this EPA Project
(EPA Project No. R803797-01-0). 73 pp.
Finnemore, E. J. and J. L. Shepherd. 1974. Spokane River Basin Model Project
Volume I - Final Report. Air and Water Programs Division, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington.
Frere, M. H., C. A. Onstad, and H. N. Holtan. 1975. ACTMO - An Agricultural
Chemical Transport Model. ARS-H-3 Agricultural Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, Maryland.
Gilbertson, C. B., T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis, 0. E. Cross and W. R. Woods.
1971. Runoff, Solid Wastes, and Nitrate Movement on Beef Feedlots.
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed. 49:483-493.
Hagin, J., and A. Amberger. 1974. Contribution of fertilizers and manures to
the N- and P-load of waters. A computer simulation. Final Rept. to the
Deutsche Forschungs Gemeinschaft from Technion, Israel. 123 pp.
Hamilton Standard. 1973. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards of Performance - Feedlot Industry. 276 pp.
Hornsby, A. G. 1973. Prediction Modeling for Salinity Control in Irrigation
Return Flows: A State-of-the-Art Review. EPA-R2-73-168, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Kang, S. F., L. T. Fan, E. S. Lee, and L. E. Erickson. 1970. Modeling Feed-
lot Runoff Pollution. I. Analog Simulation. II Quasilinearization.
Trans. ASAE 13:859-869.
Kirda, C., D. R. Nielsen, and J. W. Biggar. 1973. Simultaneous transport of
chloride and water during infiltration. Soil Sci. Soc. Araer. Proc.
37:339-345.
Koelliker, J. K. and J. R. Miner. 1973. Desorption of Ammonia from Anaerobic
Lagoons. Transactions A.S.A.E. 16:148-151.
149
-------
Kreis, R. D., M. R. Scalf and J. F. McNabb. 1972. Characteristics of Rain-
fall Runoff from a Beef Cattle Feedlot. Final Report, Proj. 13040 FHP,
EPA-R2-72-061. U.S. Environ. Protect. Agency, Washington, D.C.
Linderman, C. L. and J. R. Ellis. 1975. "Quality Variation of Feedlot Runoff
in Storage" Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Winter Meeting, Chicago, 111., Paper No.
75-2563.
Loehr, R. C. 1974. Agricultural Waste Management. Academic Press, New York.
Manges, H. L., et al. 1975. Treatment and Ultimate Disposal of Cattle
Feedlot Wastes. EPA-660/2-75-013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 136 pp.
McCalla, T. M., J. R. Ellis, C. B. Gilbertson, and W. R. Woods. 1972. Chemi-
cal Studies of Solids, Runoff, Soil Profile and Groundwater from Beef
Cattle Feedlots at Mead, Nebraska. Proc. Agr. Waste Manage. Conf.,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. pp. 211-223.
McElroy, A. D., S. Y. Chiu, J. W. Nebgen, A. Aleti, and F. W. Bennett. 1976.
Loading Functions for Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint
Sources. EPA-600/2-76-151, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Mehran, J., and K. K. Tanji. 1974. Computer modeling of nitrogen transforma-
tions in soils. Journ. Environ. Qual. 3:391-385.
Miner, J. R., R. K. Lipper, L. R. Fina and J. W. Funk. 1966. Cattle Feedlot
Runoff - Its nature and Variation. Jour. Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion. 38:1582-1591.
Miner, J. R. 1967. Water Polluti6n Potential of Cattle Feedlot Runoff.
Ph.D. Thesis. Kansas State University. 147 pp. (Mic. 67-9147, Univ.
Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan).
Miner, J. R., R. F. Lipper, and L. E. Erickson. 1967. Modeling Feedlot
Runoff Pollution. Trans. ASAE, 10:497-501.
Miner, J. R. 1976. Cattle Feedlot Runoff and Retention Pond Discharge
Quality. Working paper for this EPA project (EPA Project No. R803797-
01-0). 39 pp.
Misra, C. D., R. Nielsen, and J. W. Biggar. 1974. Nitrogen transformations
in soil during leaching: II. Steady state nitrification and nitrate
reduction. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 38:294-299.
Negev, M. A. 1969. A Sediment Model on a Digital Computer. Technical Report
No. 76, Department of Civil Engineering, Standford University, Standford,
California.
150
-------
Norton, T. E. and R. W. Hansen. 1969. Cattle Feedlot Water Quality Hydro-
logy. Proc. Agr. Waste Manage. Conf., Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York. pp. 203-216.
Powers, W. L., et al. 1975. Research Status on Effects of Land Application
of Animal Wastes. EPA-66/2-75/010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Powers, W. L. 1976. Water Quality Modeling for Feedlot Runoff Management and
Control: A Working Paper on Dissolved Salt Effect on Ground Water.
Working paper for this EPA project (EPA Project No. R803797-01-0) 11 pp.
Selim, H. M., J. M. Davidson, and P. S. C. Rao. 1977. Transport of Reactive
Solutes through Multilayered Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. (in press).
Shaffer, J. M., R. W. Ribbens, and C. W. Huntly. 1976. Detailed Return Flow
Salinity and Nutrient Simulation Model, Vol. V of Prediction of Mineral
Quality of Irrigation Return Flow. Rept. to U.S. E.P.A. from U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation. (Draft copy).
Shepherd, J. L., and E. J. Finnemore. 1974. Spokane River Basin Model
Project: Vol. VI - User's Manual for Stratified Reservoir Model. Air
and Water Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
X, Seattle, Washington.
Stone, M. L., J. M. Harper, and R. W. Hansen. 1975. Decomposition Rates of
Beef Cattle Wastes. In Managing Livestock Wastes. ASAE, St. Joseph,
Michigan, pp. 344-346.
Texas Tech. University. 1971. Characteristics of Wastes from Southwestern
Cattle Feedlots. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution
Control Series. 13040 DEM 01/71. 87 pp.
Warrick, A. W., J. W. Biggar, and D. R. Nielsen. 1971. Simultaneous Solute
and Water Transfer for an Unsaturated Soil. Water Resour. Res. 7:1216-
1225.
Wells, D. M., G. F. Meenaghan, R. C. Albin, E. A. Coleman and W. Grub. 1972.
Characteristics of Wastes from Southwest Beef Cattle Feedlots. In:
Waste Management Research, Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, pp. 385-404.
Wensink, R. B. and J. R. Miner. 1976. Modeling the Effects of Management
Alternatives on the Design of Cattle Feedlot Runoff Control Facilities.
ASAE Paper No. 76-4034. Presented at 1976 Annual Meeting, Lincoln, Nebr.
20 pp.
Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith. 1965. Predicting Rainfall - Erosion
Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains. Agricultural Handbook
No. 282. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
151
-------
Zovne, J. J., et al. 1977. Model to Evaluate Feedlot Runoff Control Systems.
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 103, No. IR1, March 1971. pp. 79-92.
152
-------
APPENDIX E
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND CONVERSION TABLE
The following symbols are used in this paper:
ABST absolute air temperature, in degrees Kelvin;
Bm area of midsection of storage facility;
Bl area of bottom of storage facility;
B2 water surface area in storage facility;
C degree-day coefficient (usually 0.05-0.06), in inches per degree-day
Fahrenheit;
1/2
c' hydraulic coefficient of soil in inches per day ;
D snow melted by rainfall, in inches of water;
E emissivity;
EA convective loss, in millimeters of water evaporated per day;
ES saturation vapor pressure in millibars;
Es stage 2 evaporation;
ESA actual vapor pressure in millibars;
G sensible heat flux to or from soil;
h depth of water in storage facility, in feet;
HMAX maximum depth of water allowable in storage facility;
IA initial abstraction, in inches of water;
k Blaney-Criddle consumptive use coefficient;
Ks coefficient for soil-moisture conditions;
M atmospheric snow melt, in inches of water;
MD moisture deficit in inches;
N SCS runoff curve number;
P precipitation, in inches;
PAVLU percentage of upper zone available moisture as a ratio;
P25 25-yr 24-hr storm in inches;
PREVAP ratio of precipitation to lake evaporation;
153
-------
PET potential evaporation, in millimeters of water;
PONVOL pond volume required for 100 percent control in acre-inches;
PSUNS percentage of possible sunshine as a ratio;
Q direct surface runoff, in inches;
r mean daily shortwave reflectance or albedo;
RA extra-terrestrial solar radiation on horizontal surface, in milli-
meters of water evaporated per day;
R, outgoing longwave radiation in millimeters of water evaporated per
day;
RHD relative humidity as a ratio;
Rn heat budget at surface, in millimeters of water per day;
S maximum potential difference between precipitation and runoff in
inches;
SURF pond surface area required for 100 percent control by evaporation
in acres;
t time after stage 1 evaporation, in days;
Ta mean daily temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit;
Tb base temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit;
U upper limit of stage 2 evaporation in inches:
V volume of water in storage facility, in acre-inches;
VOLMAX maximum volume of water held by storage facility, in acre-inches;
W mean wind speed at height t above ground in miles per day;
WVD mean wind speed at 2 m above ground, in miles per day;
Z height above ground at which wind velocity is measured in feet;
y psychrometric constant in Bowen ratio equation;
A slope of saturation vapor pressure-temperature curve;
-7 24
a Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 1.17 x 10 cal/cm /K° /day;
6 actual available soil moisture content, in inches; and
Si
Q maximum available soil moisture content, in inches.
max
154
-------
TABLE E-l. CONVERSION OF UNITS
Units stated Units desired Multiply by
Length
Inches millimeters 25.4
Inches meters 0.0254
Feet millimeters 304.8
Feet meters 0.3048
Area
Square feet square meters 0.0929 ,
Square feet hectares 9.29 x 10~
Acres square meters 4047.0
Acres hectares 0.4047
Volume
Acre-inches cubic meters 102.8
Acre-inches hectare-centimeter 1.028
Temperature
Degrees fahrenheit degrees Centigrade (°F - 32)/1.8
Degrees fahrenheit degrees Kelvin I(°F-32)/1.8J + 273.15
Velocity
Miles/day meters/second 0.0186
Miles/hour meters/second 0.4471
155
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-065
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOONO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
APPLICATION OF CONTINUOUS WATERSHED MODELLING TO
FEEDLOT RUNOFF MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
5. REPORT DATE
March 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Jerome J. Zovne and James K. Koelliker
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-803797
12. SPONSORING AGENCV NAME AND ADDRESS , , ..
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab. - Ada, OK
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
\naPlE
VERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Lynn R. Shuyler, Source Management Branch
16. ABSTRACT
A continuous simulation, digital computer, hydrologic model of feedlot runoff genera-
tion and disposal has been developed at Kansas State University. The purpose of the
model is to establish guidelines and design parameters for feedlot runoff control
facilities which will meet the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. The model continuously monitors the water budget of a feedlo
storage pond-irrigation disposal area control system using historic rainfall and
temperature data. It uses only readily available climate, soil, and crop data so
that it can be applied to all major livestock producing areas of the United States.
The model is expected to be useful in evaluating applications for "permits" to dis-
charge and for 208 planning agencies in "Best Management Practices" for feedlots. A
user manual is included with program printout, input data requirements, and an ex-
ample of a 25-year simulation for Belleville, Kansas.
A report on the state-of-the-art of modelling the quality of feedlot runoff is also
presented. This report resulted from a meeting of specialists to pool resources on
water quality modelling from their respective specialty areas.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT I Field/Group
Agricultural Wastes
Animal Husbandry
Waste Disposal
Models
Animal Waste Management
Feedlot Runoff
Runoff Retention Designs
Land Disposal
43F
68D
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
166
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form^2220-1 (9-73)
156
OUSGPO: a979-657-060/a638
------- |