Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1.0 <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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />PROPOSED HYDROLOGY FOR USE IN HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS <br />OF FEMA FLOOD STUDIES AND RESTUDIES <br /> <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />1.1 <br /> <br />Evaluation Procedure <br /> <br />The first step in the evaluation of hydrology for FEMA Flood <br />Studies was to obtain all available existing data for the <br />stream basins in question. These included previous Flood <br />Insuranee StudIes (FIS), Master Drainage Reports (MDR) , Letter <br />of Map Revisions (LOMR), Letter of Map Amendments (LOMA), <br />Colorado State HIghway Department culvert design analyses, and <br />other related reports. <br /> <br />These documents were reviewed on a stream by stream basis to <br />determine the current appll cabil ity of the hydrology presented <br />in each. The pertInent criteria Included the exIsting level of <br />development in each basin, hydrologic modeling parameters and <br />procedures utilized, and major discrepancies among dIfferent <br />reports for the same basin. <br /> <br />Field reconnaissance was conducted on all the study stream <br />reaches to verify existing conditions. Where necessary, return <br />field investigations were undertaken to satisfy specific <br />questions arising from the literature review. Locations of the <br />stream :reaches being studied are shown in Figure 1.1. <br /> <br />In the cases where the reported hydrology was determined <br />reasonable (according to FEMA study guidelines), a modeling <br />check of the parameters used was made to verify the resultant <br />discharges. For those cases with differing levels of <br />development from existing condItions and/or out of date design <br />storm criteria, modifications were made to the parameters and a <br />revised modeling analysis was conducted. <br /> <br />The most detailed evaluations were made for the streams that <br />exhibited major discharge discrepancies among different <br />reports:. There were also cases where the City of Colorado <br />Springs or E1 Paso County questioned the validity of reported <br />discharges. Under these conditions, a detailed hydrology <br />reanalysis was undertaken. ThIs included complete reevaluation <br />of subbasin boundaries and areas, time of eoncentration <br />estimates, soil curve numbers, streamflow routing, and <br />detention storage routing. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />R€~()U~€ C()N~Ucr~NT~ INC <br />