Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> r--- --.----- <br /> i Table 3.--Distribution-modeZ results of the average pond <br /> I with an infZow of 1 cubic foot per second <br />, I <br /> I Surface <br /> L InflO\" Mean Shore- Seepage <br /> l10nth (cubi c feet depth area 1 jne (cubic feet <br /> per second) (feet) (acres) (mi les) per second) <br /> 1--- 1. 00 1. 74 3.45 0.36 0.78 <br /> 2--- 1. 00 2.01 4.62 .42 1.06 <br /> 3--- 1. 00 1. 90 4.18 .40 .93 <br /> 4--- 1. 00 1. 97 4.48 .41 1.02 <br /> 5--- 1. 00 1. 95 4.39 .41 .99 <br /> 6--- 1.00 1. 95 4.39 .41 .99 <br /> 7--- 1. 00 1.94 4.32 .40 .98 <br /> 8--- 1.00 1.94 4.34 .40 .98 <br /> 9--- 1. 00 1. 94 4.32 .40 .97 <br /> 10--- 1. 00 1.94 4.32 .40 .97 <br /> 11--- --------------------Steady-state------------------- <br /> <br />The distribution model was also run with various inflow conditions tOi <br />,identify the available flO\" for diversions into the ponds. Oifferent river' <br />diversions were routed through the system without any ponds being simulated. <br />'The excess outflow from the system that would occur is shown in table 4. This <br />:outflow is an indication of the quantity of water that would be available to <br />'be diverted into ponds. A linear regression relating the river diversion to <br />:the excess outflow (fig. 9) was computed to be: <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />; <br />I <br />i <br />i <br />I <br />:where PS is the potential supply to ponds, in cubic feet per second; and <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />:The regression coefficients were placed in the model along with the number of <br />:ponds to be simulated. Based on the monthly diversion, the model computed <br />I'h' ,.,"" ,f ",',' " b, d'.,,',d " ."h ,,'d. <br /> <br />PS;-82.5+0.913D, <br /> <br />(14) <br /> <br />D is the river diversion, in cubic feet per second. <br /> <br />; <br />I' <br />I " <br /> <br />l~ <br />