My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00553
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00553
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:28 AM
Creation date
10/6/2006 12:01:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
FS0022X
Contractor Name
West Anvil Water & Power Company
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
Garfield
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.
/
368
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 />. <br /> <br />County Reservoir Project investigation were adjusted <br />to reflect the PMF at the Una dam site. .. The <br />resulting Project PMF is estimated to have a peak flow <br />of 130,000 cfs. . . The mean annual precipitation in <br />the basin is approximately 16.9 inches and the 100- <br />year 6-hour precipitation is estimated to vary from <br />approximately 1.8 inches at Grand Junction to over two <br />inches in the upper basin. The average 72-hour PMP <br />over the drainage basin is 10.7 inches, based upon <br />information provided in the September 1977 <br />publication, Hydrometeorological Report No. 49, <br />Probable Maximum Preci itation' Estimates 'Colorado <br />RlVer an Great Basln Draina es HMR49. . . The peak <br />flow for the PMF was calculated in two slightly <br />different ways and then the results of the two methods <br />were averaged. The average was then checked for <br />reasonableness by three other estimation methods. <br /> <br />The two primary estimation methods are based on: (1) <br />adjustment of the port ion of the Tri -County PMF peak <br />flow attributable to snowmelt by the direct ratio of <br />the Una versus the Tri-County drainage areas above El <br />9000; and (2) adjustment of the snowmelt peak by the <br />direct ratio of the average May 1 snowpack water <br />equivalents in the two basins. This snowmelt peak was <br />then added to the rainfall portion of the flood peak <br />estimated by one of two methods as follows: The <br />rainfall portion was calculated by multiplying the <br />rainfall portion of the Tri-County PMF peak by the <br />direct ratio of the PMP in each basin and then by <br />either: (1) the direct ratio or (2) the square root <br />of the ratio of the total drainage areas of the two <br />basins. The peak flow is 121,000 cfs by the square <br />root method and 138,000 cfs by the direct method. The <br />average of approximately 130,000 cfs was adopted as <br />the peak flow estimate for the PMF. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The above adopted PMF est imate was then checked for <br />general reasonableness by the following three methods: <br />(1) est imate based on the rat io of the Tri -County PMF <br />to the 500-year flood; (2) estimate based on the <br />placement of the Tri-County PMF peak on the USBR peak <br />discharge envelope curves used in the Dominguez <br />Reservoir Flood Study and (3) comparing the estimate <br />to that contained in the USBR Feasibil ity Report for <br />the Bluestone Project on the Colorado River. The <br />following peak discharge values were obtained based <br />upon the above three methods, respectively: 125,000 <br />cfs, 120,000 cfs, and 110,000 cfs. The peak discharge <br />of 130,000 cfs for the PMF therefore appears <br />conservative and has been selected for use in <br />prel iminary design studies of the Una Project. The <br />volume of the PMF was not estimated since it would be <br />very large and no routing effect could be obtained <br /> <br />3686-a/5 <br /> <br />1-10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.