My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07897
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07897
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:29:20 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:40:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.126.D
Description
San Miguel Project
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
4
Date
12/20/1988
Title
Flow Measurement and Operating Records Data Memorandum
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.
/
22
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 />..0 <br />~ <br />lIII:r' <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />The maximum capacity of the Guriey Intake Ditch upstream of the chute is <br />calculated to be 360 cfs; as will be discussed in greater detail with regard to the <br />sensitivity analysis, this is not sufficiently different from the reported value to <br />warrant a revision of the 400 cfs value. <br /> <br />To evaluate whether there are any serious constrictions in the system and whether 600 cfs <br />could be delivered to the reservoir if the ditch capacity is limited to 400 cfs above the chute, a <br />comparison of ditch capacity to flow proportioned for contributing drainage area was <br />undertaken. For this analysis the following assumptions were made: <br /> <br />o The total runoff rate for the entire drainage area contributing to the Gurley Intake <br />Ditch was 600 cfs. <br /> <br />o All watersheds were running simultaneously and contributing runoff in proportion <br />to their drainage area. <br /> <br />o The required discharge rates at the selected locations in the ditch were <br />estimated in proportion to the 600 cfs value. The proportion used was the ratio <br />of the contributing watershed drainage area above that point to the total area. <br /> <br />The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.