Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,I <br />I <br />II <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 />Pertinent rainfall data and basin characteristics are shown on the Summary <br /> <br />Sheet - Blackmer Gulch Tributary Hydrology, Table 1. Both lOO-Year Flood <br /> <br />Hydrographs are shown on Figure 1. <br /> <br />HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS <br /> <br />Hydraulic calculations were don" using the HEC II cOl'lputer program for <br />routing the lOO-year flood flows. A linear increase in flows was assumed <br /> <br />from the upstream hydrologic point to 81acknler Lake. 131ackmer Gulch <br />Tributary flows under E1 Camino Drive and Holly Street, cro~;';illlJ at both <br /> <br />streets in corrugated "Ietal pipes. A third crossinq, located downstrealll <br /> <br />of Holly Street at lIighline Canal, wilS analyzed as though tht' canal were <br /> <br />a bridge with an insignificant sized opening. The starting water surface <br /> <br />elevation for the lOO-year flood level at Blackmer Lake was taken as ele- <br />vation 5459. Initial computer analysis indicated that flow in the gulch <br />was near or at critical depth for the majority of the length. Flood plain <br /> <br />encroachment was calculated for each cross-section based on an egual degree <br /> <br />of encroachment on each overbank. The HEC II computer program Method 5 <br />was utilized for the encroachment calculations. This method uses an opti- <br />mization scheme to obtain a target difference in water surface elevation <br /> <br />between natural and encroached conditions. The target water surface eleva- <br />tion difference was set at 0.5 feet. Optimization towards the target figure <br /> <br />was reguired because during the 100-year flood the majority of the gulch <br /> <br />would flow at or near critical depth. Depths near critical can fluctuate <br /> <br />greatly as a result of even minor changes in cross-section characteristics. <br /> <br />A maximum of twenty-one trials was allowed in attempting to approach the <br />target water surface difference. A summary of the flood hazard information <br /> <br />resulting from the computer analysis is shown on Table 2. <br /> <br />600 <br /> <br />500 <br /> <br />o <br />z <br />8 400 <br />LlJ <br />III <br />II:: <br />LlJ <br />a.. <br />.... <br />LlJ <br />LlJ <br />u. <br />() <br />aI <br />::l <br />() <br />Z <br /> <br />300 <br /> <br />200 <br /> <br />::: <br />o <br />.J <br />u. <br /> <br />100 <br /> <br />ENTIRE BASIN-AT BLACKMER LAKE <br />PEAK::539CFS , <br />VOLUME= 59.2 ACRE-FEET <br />DRAINAGE AREA= 305 ACRES <br /> <br /> <br />--~i- <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />00 <br /> <br /> <br />UPPER SUBBASIN-AT EL CAMINO DRIVE <br />PEAK=418 CFS <br />VOLUME=24.1 ACRE-FEET <br />DRAINAGE AREA=122 ACRES <br /> <br />\ <br />~-~-~-\ ~- <br /> <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />2 3 <br />TIME IN HOURS <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />BLACKMER GULCH TRIBUTARY <br />IOO-YEAR FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS <br /> <br />FIGURE I <br /> <br />- 2- <br />