Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />current DCM criteria. With only few modifications, Rcr adopted <br />the same hydrologic parsmeters as the KEC study. A summary of <br />parameters for the 29 subbasins is presented in Table 10.2. <br /> <br />TABLE 10.2 .:. SUMMARY OF SET BASIN PARAMETERS <br /> <br />SUBBASIN <br /> <br />DRAINAGE AREA <br />(square miles) <br /> <br />CURVE NUMBER <br />CN <br /> <br />TIME OF <br />CONCENTRATrON. Ic <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />19 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />42 <br />58 <br />59 <br />60 <br />61 <br />62 <br />63 <br />64 <br />65 <br />66 <br />67 <br />68 <br />69 <br />70 <br />87 <br />88 <br />89 <br />90 <br /> <br />0.29 <br />0.10 <br />0.13 <br />0.20 <br />0.50 <br />0.23 <br />0.26 <br />0.20 <br />0.12 <br />0.48 <br />0.14 <br />0.20 <br />0.28 <br />0.32 <br />0.08 <br />0.35 <br />0.25 <br />0.06 <br />0.20 <br />0.07 <br />0.11 <br />0.19 <br />0.10 <br />0.23 <br />0.26 <br />0.15 <br />0.26 <br />0.10 <br />0.06 <br /> <br />49 <br />62 <br />62 <br />58 <br />59 <br />62 <br />62 <br />74 <br />62 <br />60 <br />46 <br />54 <br />41 <br />55 <br />62 <br />61 <br />47 <br />40 <br />40 <br />40 <br />40 <br />40 <br />40 <br />40 <br />40 <br />42 <br />42 <br />42 <br />40 <br /> <br />0.51 <br />0.53 <br />0.07 <br />0.91 <br />1. 37 <br />0.59 <br />0.87 <br />0.78 <br />0.89 <br />0.45 <br />1.11 <br />0.37 <br />0.55 <br />0.44 <br />0.19 <br />0.44 <br />0.19 <br />0.67 <br />0.63 <br />0.52 <br />0.19 <br />0.89 <br />0.22 <br />1.42 <br />0.88 <br />1. 35 <br />0.29 <br />0.46 <br />0.63 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Peak dtscharge results from the 2-hour AMC rII storm are <br />containE!d in Table 10.3 for the hydrologic discharge points <br />highlighted on Figure 10.1. The 100-year discharge of 1,970 <br />cfs at the confluence with Sand Creek East Fork closely matches <br />the 2,026 cfs determined by the KEC study. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Comparison to the other two previous studies is not as <br />straightforward as they were conducted under considerably <br />different assumptions. However. it does seem reasonable that <br />the peak discharge generated by the SI.A study for developed <br />conditions should be hIgher than those being presented here for <br />existin~; condItions on a largely undeveloped basin. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />1.3 <br /> <br />R€~OURC€ CON~UlTI\NT~ INC <br /> <br />I <br />