Open alanccai opened 5 years ago
(Looks good in terms of placement)
In addition, the actual IFR is incorrect. From Gustavo:
below North Fork (Utica) Diversion Dam -> it is set as 5 cfs, but the documents says 16.5 cfs
Thanks Gustavo. I'll fix this.
Fyi, I updated this area as:
Per Gustavo, I've fixed the IFR amount:
The language says:
Article 37. The Licensee shall release a continuous minimum flow of 16.5 cfs immediately below Spicer Meadow Dam and belowMcKays Diversion Dam and a flow of 16.5 cfs or the natural inflow,if less, below the North Fork Diversion Dam and below Beaver Creek Diversion Dam,
Here is the pseudo-code from my IFR doc:
If natural inflows into North Fork Diversion Dam< 16.5 Natural Inflows into North Fork Diversion Dam Elseif Natural inflows into North Fork Diversion Dam >=16.5 16.5
Are we ignoring the language about "or the natural inflow, if less"? And sticking with single numbers There are many IFRs that have this.
@alanccai Thanks. We are not ignoring the natural inflow part. However, we do not need to explicitly add it to the model. If there's not enough inflow, of course it won't be released. I can show several examples of this in the model.
Need to implement ramping rate per #43. However, I think this is a low priority, since there are no hydropeaking facilities between Utica & New Spicer Meadow, and there is now a ramping rate constraint below NF Stanislaus Div Res
According to the USGS schematic, this IFR, named "Below Utica Div" in OpenAgua, should be more accurately called "Below North Fork Stanislaus River Diversion Tunnel" or "Below NF Stanislaus River Diversion Reservoir"? Otherwise, looks good.