My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C154141 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
C154141 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2014 1:43:04 PM
Creation date
7/16/2010 11:53:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C154141
Contractor Name
AECOM USA, Inc.
Contract Type
Grant
Water District
0
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Report
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
233
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Demand Pattern (150,000 af Yield) <br />40,000 <br />35,000 <br />30.000 <br />25,000 <br />w <br />L 20,000 <br />u <br />ce <br />� 15,000 <br />I 0,000 <br />5,000 <br />0 <br />Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec j <br />M onth <br />❑ Power ■ M&I O Irrigation � Fish Release <br />Figure EL Modeled Demand for Grand Valley Lake (Large Reservoir) Operations Analysis <br />Firm yield for the smaller reservoir impounded by dam Alignment 2 was shown to be 54,500 af, and <br />there was no benefit to increasing diversion capacity above 1 I S cfs. Smaller diversion capacities and <br />firm yields were not explored because meeting the OMID demand (58,300 af/yr) seems to be a <br />reasonable threshold for viability of the project. When annual demand is set to 58,300 af/yr, it can be <br />met in every year of the 31-year modeling period, except for 1977, when it delivers approximately <br />51,000 af. Whether this represents an acceptable level of risk to OM1D is not known. <br />The reservoir capacity which is equal to the water in storage at the beginning of the critical period, is too <br />small for the total volume of the deficit with respect to demand over the critical period. Therefore, <br />increasing the diversion capacity from 1 15 cfs provides no benefit because during the critical period, <br />legally available water does not exceed this amount. <br />4 <br />AECOM <br />2/22/10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.