Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />swnmary of the basin parameters is presented in Table 11.2. <br /> TABL!:; lLl -=- SUMMARY OF PC BASIN PARAMETERS <br /> DRAINAGE AREA CURVE NUMBER TIME OF <br />SUBBASIN muare miles) CN CONCENTRATION. Ic <br />C1 1.01 69 1.40 <br />C2 1.71 67 1.40 <br />C3 1. 91 57 1.18 <br />C4 0.36 61 0.48 <br />Tl 1.64 56 1.04 <br />T2 0.41 53 0.76 <br />T3 0.25 53 0.86 <br />T4 0.18 65 0.39 <br />T5 0.34 80 0.50 <br />T6 0.30 77 0.60 <br />T7 0.45 54 0.69 <br />T8 0.29 65 0.41 <br />T9 0.20 73 0.19 <br />TlO 0.93 69 0.84 <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />As-built plans for detention ponds 1 and 2 were obtained for <br />determIning the stage-volume-discharge data needed for TR-20 <br />input. The rating curve provided in the MDRCH was used for <br />Pond 3. Detention at subbasin T3 was assumed neglIgible. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The peak dIscharge values obtained In this study for the 24- <br />hour AMC II storm are presented in Table 11.3. The value of <br />1,280 cfs reported at P8 for the 100-year discharge is in close <br />agreement with the 1,252 cfs value obtained by the PCDB for the <br />24-hour storm. Both study values represent existing conditions <br />in the PC basin. <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In terms of the PCT basin, values obtained in this study are <br />significantly lower than those from the ESCC. Aside from the <br />fact that the prevIous study assumed fully developed <br />conditions, two other significant differences exist between <br />these studies. First of all, the ESCC generally assumed <br />hydrolol;ic soil types one step above those used in this study. <br />In other words; where a type "A" soil was assumed in this study <br />a type "B" soil was asstlmed in the other study and so on. The <br />second major difference Involves detention routing. It is <br />apparent from the ESCC discharge values that the storage <br />detention capability assumed in their analysis was not at as <br />high a <:apacity as presently exists. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1.9 <br /> <br />R€~OURC€ CON~UlTI\NT~ INC <br /> <br />I <br />