Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />"'..,.,. ..,..".,111 <br />,J.! <br />" <br /> <br />~I: <br /> <br />miscellaneous records were ignored and the annual peaks for the <br />years 1910 through 1965 Here analyzed for frequency of occurrence <br />or the various magnitudes. <br /> <br />The peak for 1957 Has found to be an outlier on the upper end of <br />the curve. The computations Here made again deleting the 1957 <br />figure. The computations and plotted curves for both the analysis <br />Hith, and the analysis Hithout,the outlier are attached. <br /> <br />Using v21ues from planimeter measurements) <br />interest to the nearest square mile are as <br /> <br />above the gage at Granite <br />above Malta diversion dam <br />above Halfmoon diversion dam <br /> <br />the drainage areas of <br />follows: <br />430 square miles <br /> 97 square miles <br /> 24 square miles <br /> <br />It is general practice to compare peak flows in hydrologically <br />similar basins or within one basin by the square root of the <br />drainage-area-ratio. This in the absence of better data. The <br />discharge values computed using an exponent of 0.5 with the <br />drainage-area-ratios was large when compared with the discharge <br />of like frequency computed for the gage near the diversion site. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Another exponent Has derived by making a probability study using only <br />those years at Granite when there was a record at Halfmoon. The dis- <br />charges of the various frequencies were correlated with the drainage <br />areas and the rela' . ed tion thus determined WaS <br /> <br />as follows: <br /> <br />Ql <br />Q2 <br /> <br />= <br /> <br />D 0.8 <br />(...1.) <br />D2 <br /> <br />f'~~ nok <br /> <br />In m2king the above correlations the outlier in the Granite record, <br />1957, 'Vlas included in the computations. <br /> <br />Th~ folloHing tabulation for certain frequency annual p~aks at Malta <br />shows the variation b~tHeen the peaks derived from the Tennessee Fork <br />gage in combination with the East Fork of the Arkansas River gage and <br />those peaks derived from the above drainage-area-ratio relationship <br />with the gage at Granite. <br /> <br /> ------ Q Q Q <br /> At Granite At i.jalta At tialta <br /> (Hith outlier) from DAR from combinedJJages <br /> Return Period c.f.s. c.f.s. c.f.s-. <br /> 25 3348 1024 1359 <br /> 50 3701 1133 l'j66 <br /> 100 4053. 1240 1566 <br />. Y Plus 193 c.f.s. transmountain diversions above point of interest. <br /> <br />51 <br />