Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DD~178 <br /> <br />Draft: April 21, 1994 <br /> <br />two options: <br />1.) retain mass balance: ~ <br />- treat INFL56-59 as core stations ~~~& <br />would require rei teration of re ,0\ './ <br />expanded network core station and? /~ <br />inflow value adjustment <br />2.) do not retain mass balance: <br />- use INFL56-59 as derived without <br />adjusting other core station and <br />inflow values <br />- mass balance with natural flows at <br />CRSS Gunnison River nr. Grand <br />Junction would not be maintained, <br />although difference would be minor; <br /> <br />~~\.-- <br />s>l' <br />t-~~ <br /> <br />B.) Retain use of flows developed from difference <br />file (expanded network flow development <br />ENFL23a,b,c,d) <br /> <br />RecolllIllendation: <br /> <br />retain use of inflows developed from difference <br />file (ENFL23a,b,c,d); this would require: <br /> <br />-- identification of these inflows as being <br />derived from difference file <br />-- removal of potential element development <br />capability from nodes for which these inflows <br />represent the sole source of flow; from <br />Uncompahgre Valley section of network diagram, <br />these include: ' <br />Horsefly: potential demand <br />Happy Canyon: potential demand <br />Spring Creek: <br />- Upper Spring Ck. potential demand <br />- Lower Spring Ck. potential demand <br /> <br />Dry Creek: <br />Upper Dry Ck. potential demand <br />Lower Dry Ck. potential demand <br /> <br />this option is consistent with how inflows <br />derived from difference files have been addressed <br />in the rest of the network; (mass balance is <br />retained) <br /> <br />given existing time and funding constraints, <br />incorporation of this option would require the <br />least amount of additional effort; <br /> <br />8 <br />