My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07437
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07437
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:27:20 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:23:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.851
Description
La Verkin Springs Unit - Colorado River Salinity Control Program
State
UT
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1984
Title
La Verkin Springs Unit Utah Preliminary Findings Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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. Subtract the 60 ft3/sec infiltration loss near Bloomington, Utah <br />and assume no change in quality of Littlefield Springs, AZ. <br />Calculate the post project flow and quality of Virgin River at <br />Littlefield as shown below (Table 3): <br /> <br />Virgin River <br />at <br />Littlefield, <br />AZ <br /> <br />Virgin River <br />::: near <br />St. George <br /> <br />Infiltration <br />Loss 3 <br />(60 ft <br />see <br /> <br />+ <br /> <br />Littlefield <br />Springs, AZ <br /> <br />+ <br /> <br />Intervening <br />Flow From Near <br />St. George to <br />Virgin River <br />at Littlefield <br />AZ <br />(from step 5 <br />above) <br /> <br />The assumption of no change in quality of Littlefield Spring3, AZ <br />flow is valid for the entire life of the pro]ect if the 60ft /sec <br />infiltration loss, near Bloomington, U3ah, is not the source of the <br />Littlefield Springs flow. If the 60ft /sec infiltration loss is <br />the source of Littlefield Springs flow the "no change in qualit?' <br />assumption is valid on Iv for the first 22+ vears of proiect life. <br />Twenty-two plus years is the assumed minimum travel time from <br />infiltration at Bloomington to reemergence as Littlefield spring <br />flow. <br /> <br />J. Take the difference in Virgin River salt loading between <br />pre-project (Table 2) and post project (Table 3) conditions at <br />Littlefield and apply the future effect equation (Progress Report <br />No. IJ, January 1983) for removal of salt above Parker Dam. This <br />vie Ids the expected salinitv reduction at Imperial Dam due to this <br />project (See bottom of Table 3). <br /> <br />The future effect equation for selinity control pro]ects which do <br />not deplete the flow of the river system above Parker Dam for 2010 <br />conditions is described in Progress Report No.ll. The equation is <br />shOlm below: <br /> <br />Change in Salt Loading <br />10,000 <br /> <br />x <br /> <br />1.01 = Change in Concentration <br />at Imperial Dam <br /> <br />where: Change in Salt Loading has units of 1000 tons <br /> <br />Ch?nge in Concentratiop at Imperial Dan has Units <br />of mg/L <br /> <br />K. If the 60ft3/sec infiltration loss near Bloomington is the source <br />of the Littlefield Springs flow, estimate the change in quality of <br />the Littlefield Springs flow due to the replacement of La Verkin <br />Springs flow with water from Quail Creek Reservoir as described in <br />step I'G above. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />002619 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.