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 />. <br />I <br />I <br />I, <br />.' <br /> <br />peaks are separated according to the capacity of the drainage facility, <br />and the flood plains are defined using the "actual" flood peaks in <br />the channel. <br />A summary of the flow splitting conditions that were evaluated is <br />presented in Table 6. The most severe condition occurs in Drainageway G <br />and G-2 at 6th Avenue, where the flow is severely restricted by the capacity <br />of the culverts. The flow split hydrographs were separated, routed, and <br />combined with other hydrographs as necessary. <br />The results of the hydrologic analysis are presented as storm <br />runoff peak flows and volumes for the hydrologic points of interest in <br />Table 5 for existing and developed conditions. Storm hydrographs for <br />several of the hydrologic design locations were plotted and are presented <br />in Figure 4. <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br />HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS <br /> <br />A. General <br />The Green Mountain Area flood plains were defined for the 10 and 100 <br />year flood flows for the future basin development condition. Each <br />culvert, bridge and storm drain was evaluated. This evaluation is <br />limited to determining the capacity and general condition but does not <br />include evaluating the structurJl integrity of the facility. <br />B, Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facility <br />The evaluation of the existing drainage facilities was performed using <br />the 1"=100', 2 foot contour interval mapping and the field notes showing <br />the size of the drainage facilities provided by Delta Aerial Surveys, Inc. under <br />a separate contract with U,D, & F.C,D. In addition, field inspections <br />were made where additional information was required. The facilities that <br />were evaluated included channels, culverts and bridges, storm sewers, <br />detention ponds and spillways, <br />Some construction has taken place along the drainageways subsequent <br />to the mapping, but during the hydrological analysis of the study (summer <br />of 1977). These construction sites were considered to be "existing <br />facilities" and were evaluated based upon the agency approved construction <br />plans, The following ongoing construction projects were evaluated as <br />existing facilities: <br />1. Drainageway B and B-1, Foothills Shopping Center storm <br />sewer, street and channel improvements, <br /> <br />8 <br />