My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00492
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00492
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:26 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:57:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153364
Contractor Name
Beck, R. W. and Associates
Water District
0
County
Garfield
Bill Number
SB 81-439
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
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.
/
458
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />May 1 snowpack water equivalents in the two basins. This snowmelt peak was <br />then added to the rainfall portion of the flood peak estimated by one of two <br />methods as follows: The rainfall portion was calculated by multiplying the <br />rainfall portion of the Tri-County PMF peak by the direct ratio of the PM? in <br />each basin and then by either: (1) the direct ratio or (2) the square root of <br />the ratio of the total drainage areas of the two basins. The peak flow is <br />121,000 cfs by the square root method and 138,000 cfs by the direct method. <br />The average of approximately 130,000 cfs was adopted as the peak flow estimate <br />for the PMF. <br /> <br />The above adopted PMF estimate was then checked for general reason- <br />ableness by the following three methods: (1) estimate based on the ratio of <br />the Tri-County PMF to the 500-year flood; (2) estimate based on the placement <br />of the Tri-County PMF peak on the USBR peak discharge envelope curves used in <br />the Dcminguez Reservoir flood Study (see Fig. II-6); and (3) comparing the <br />estimate to that contained in the USBR Feasibility Report for the Bluestone <br />Project on the Colorado River. The following peak discharge values were <br />obtained based upon the above three methods, respectively: 125,000 cfs, <br />120,000 cfs, and 11 0, 000 cfs. The peak discharge of 130,000 cfs for the PMF <br />therefore appears conservati ve and has been selected for use in preliminary <br />design studies of the Una Project. The volume of the PMF was not estimated <br />since it would be very large and no routing effect could be obtained frcm the <br />Una Reservoir, considering the nature of the flood hydrographs. The spillway <br />will, therefore, be designed for the peak inflow. An approximation of the PMF <br />hydrograph at Una is compared to the Tri-County Project PMF hydrograph in <br />Fig. II-7. <br /> <br />G. RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION AND OPERATION DURING FLOODS <br /> <br />1. Sediment Yield <br /> <br />Sediment inflow to the Una Reservoir consists of the yield from the <br />7,370 square mile drainage basin upstream frcm the dam site. The average <br />annual sediment yield of the basin was estimated based upon suspended sediment <br /> <br />II-15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.