Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />' RESULTS OF FLOOD MODELING DURING THE PMF <br />' The results of the flood routing calculations are summarized in Table III. It is <br />evident that Ute Creek Reservoir would be expected to fail during the PMF. However, <br />' the small additional volume (446 acre-feet) would be absorbed by the tailing pond and <br />would not cause a domino effect of overtopping. The total area providing discharge into <br />' the tailing area is about 11.52 square miles, or 7,370 acres. The total vclume of the <br />storm over this area would be about 3,440 acre-feet, of which about 500 acre-feet <br />' would be lost to infiltration and other abstractions. The remaining 2,9:10 acre-feet <br />would accrue to storage in the tailing pond. <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />Tailing Maximum Beginning Maximum Change and <br />Basin Flow Storage Storage Reserve Storage <br />Structure (cfs) (acre feet) (acre feet) (acre feet) <br />Ute Creek Inflow 3,940 - - - <br />Ute Creek Outflow 1,670 130 446 0 <br /> (Overtop) <br />East Branch Inflow 3,250 - - - <br /> 520 AF Gain <br />East Branch Outflow 800 2,000 2,520 620 AF Reserve <br /> 7.5 ft. FBd <br />Total Tailing Inflow 14,400 - - - <br />Tailing Outlow and 2,930 Gain <br />Storage 0 3,057 5,980 1,536 AF Reserve <br />' From these results, we can conclude that the PMF would not overtop the tailing <br />pond. This is based on the pond configuration at the time of the fall-2000 purvey. The <br />' water level would be expected to rise about 5.4 feet during the storm. Due to the <br />changing nature of the tailing impoundment, the more critical characteristic of the PMF <br />' is the total pond inflow volume of 2,930 acre-feet. As long as the amount of surcharge <br />storage capacity in the pond exceeds this amount, this analysis indicates that the tailing <br />' pond would be capable of containing the runoff resulting from the PMF evens. <br /> <br />1 <br />7 <br />