| |
Thomas M
Member
|
Posted: May 7, 2009 Post Subject: Flows?
|
|
| Hey Chris,
I was talking to a buddy of mine who works for the forest service around Reed Creek and the Upper Clavey on a regular basis and he seemed to think that the flow looks a bit higher then what you are reporting on dreamflows.
--Thomas
|
chris
Site Admin
|
| Thomas, thanks for reporting ... seems to me this has been a weirder winter even than usual, hot, cold temperatures, even warm rain in May. That's probably affected all the Sierra estimates, since the models think it's spring, whereas the weather evidently has other ideas.
For the Clavey estimate, how egregious is the error, and what is the better action, would you say? I could suppress the estimate again, or just leave this thread as a warning that the estimate is low right now. What do you think?
|
Cornbread
Member
|
| I would say you should leave the estimate Chris as it's the best thing we've got going and I really have no faith in estimating the difference between Merals and the inflow to Don Pedro. One thing I would like to mention is that I think there is a very good possibility that we as paddlers are over-estimating the flow in the river (which pretty much is a guessing game anyway). I say this b/c I have kept records on my flow estimation and gauge reading on the upper clavey and it seems that I've over-estimated the flow as much as 200-400 cfs (thought we had around 1100 and it appears that we had around 800 and the 2nd time though we had 800 and it appears we had 600). I think that it just appears that there is more water in the river than there actually is (assuming the gauge/flow correlation Paul previously posted on boof is correct)
Upper Clavey gauge/flow correlation
| |
Edited once. Last edited by Cornbread May 14, 2009.
| | | |
