My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC06079
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
17000-17999
>
WSPC06079
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:04:21 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 5:41:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8064.100
Description
Ute Tribes
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
6/1/1987
Author
Boyle Engineering
Title
Agricultural Engineering Study - Mancos Watershed - Task D-E - Final Report - Design-Cost Estimate for Off-Farm Irrigation Facilities and PIA Determination
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/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.
/
210
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 />15;2 <br /> <br />Elevation-capacity-area curves, were developed for each of the three <br /> <br /> <br />sites and preliminary operafing studies were performed to determine <br /> <br /> <br />the total capacity necessary at each site to provide a' full <br /> <br /> <br />irrigation supply for the initially identified PIA parcels. The dam <br /> <br /> <br />freeboard and spillway size were established by routing of the IDF <br /> <br /> <br />and FOF through a full reservoir using the HEC-l Modified PuIs flood <br /> <br /> <br />routing computer program. The selected spillway size was the <br /> <br /> <br />minimum required to pass either the IDF with one foot of freeboard or <br /> <br /> <br />the FOF with no freeboard. Floods at Sites 5 and 8 were estimated by <br /> <br /> <br />extrapolation of the derived floods at Site 9. <br /> <br />Because of the relative large size of spillway required at Site 9 <br /> <br /> <br />compared to the reservoir size, a larger reservoir (configuration <br /> <br /> <br />9B), which would provide greater flood surcharge storage and allow a <br /> <br /> <br />corresponding smaller spillway, was also analyzed. <br /> <br />Rough estimates were made of the major quantities and appraisal- <br /> <br /> <br />level cost estimates of the four alternative reservoir <br /> <br /> <br />configurations were prepared. The comparative results are shown in <br /> <br /> <br />Table 0.9. <br /> <br />It was concluded that Site 9 is the most feasible location and the <br /> <br /> <br />small reservoir/large spillway configuration is the most <br /> <br /> <br />economical. This site and configuration were adopted for the final <br /> <br /> <br />detailed evaluations of the cost of storage. Table 0.9 indicates <br /> <br /> <br />that the cost for storage water from a reservoir at Site 9 is more <br /> <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.