Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I I 1-9 <br /> <br />STREAMFLOW SENSITIVITIES <br /> <br />Development. The most obvious increase 111 runoff flo",'s is due to urban- <br />ization. The development process in which substantial fractions of <br />impervious surface area are introduced, the remaining pervious areas <br />become less pervious due to lItightll lawn covered are.a, and where the <br />distances to collecting, fast-moving streams (i .e., guttel-s, ditches and <br />storm sewers) are decreased causes well-documented effects on the flood <br />hydrology of an area. The net effect is an increase in peak Flows, faster <br />repsonding streams and in general longer high flow per'iods. <br /> <br />The best example of future flow increase is the area of Lena Gulch above <br />Maple Grove Reservoir comprised basically of Basin 6, but also Basins <br />3, 4 and 5. The lOa-year frequency flow, under existing channel condi- <br />tions, but future basin development, incn.ases about 40 percent. <br /> <br />The general implication is that on-site detention ponding should be <br />required in areas above Maple Grove Reservoir. Such detention should <br />be implemented to detain runoff for a relatively long duration in order <br />to partially relieve Maple Grove Reservoir from a compounded ptoblem <br />due to new development. <br /> <br />Long Duration On-Site Detention. The use of on-site detention of runoff <br />from new deve lopment can be requ i red by County Commi so' i oners in un i ncor- <br />porated areas according to state law. These measures should be taken in <br />all areas along Lena Gulch, not only to prevent flash flows to and along <br />the Gulch, but to aid in pollution abatement. <br /> <br />The general design constraints used in the design of detentio~ faci litie. <br />refer primarily to peak discharges. The most common constraint i. to de'- <br />sign facilities that limit the peak runoff flow rate from the new to the <br />historical rate for the same lOa-year rainfall e.vent:. <br /> <br />However, the law specifically refers to I imiting of runoff to the. historical <br />volume which is more involved as far as a design constraint. The problem on <br />Lena Gulch is that the entities should ask new developers to evaluate regu- <br />lation of the total volume of runoff from the development in areas that are <br />tributary to Maple Grove Reservoir and Magic Mountain Dam No. 1 on Jackson <br />Gulch. The reason for limiting the total runoff volume is to meter the <br />increase in runoff into Lena Gulch at a time when the reservoir water sur- <br />faces downstream have started to drop. <br /> <br />This will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, but the general <br />concept will be to examine the historical hydrograph and to attempt to de- <br />sign facilities that limit the peak runoff rate and to extend the falling <br />limb of the hydrograph over a period of time on the order of 12 to 16 hours <br />compared to the normal 3 to 4 hours as shown in Figure 111-6. <br /> <br />This process wi 11 help with the spillway capacity problems that exist in <br />the basin. <br />