Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />3.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS <br /> <br />3.1 Existing Data <br /> <br />For locations where detailed existing hydrologic analyses were available, those analyses were used <br />to obtain peak 50-year and 100-year flows. <br /> <br />Published floodplain studies prepared by FEMA for Delta, Colorado provided 50-year and 100- <br />year flows at the upstream limit of this study. The floodplain study for Grand Junction provided <br />50-year and 100-year flows at the downstream limit of the study. <br /> <br />3.2 New Hvdrologic Information <br /> <br />Hydrologic analyses of the 50-year and 100-year flood flows for the remaiJlder of the hydrologic <br />points along the study reaches of the Gunnison River were accomplished by interpolation of the <br />known flow values. The peak flows per square mile for the 50-year and the 100-year frequencies <br />were virtually the same at both the upstream end of the study and the downstream end of the <br />study. Using the relationship of flow per square mile from the known values, the flow values <br />for the selected hydrologic locations on the Gunnison which did not already have a detailed <br />floodplain study were calculated. The drainage areas at those points were simply multiplied by <br />the flow per square mile. The flow per square mile selected from the existing data is 3.3 cubic <br />feet per second per square mile (cfs/mi2) for the 50-year flow and 3.7 cfs/mi2 for the toO-year <br />flow. Because the flow/drainage area relationship was so constant throughout the study reach, <br />no regression equation had to be computed. <br /> <br />3.3 Hydrologic Findings <br /> <br />Table 3 shows the results of this analysis in tabular form. <br /> <br />9 <br />