Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br />t <br /> <br />several reasons. First, the headwaters of these downstream tributaries <br /> <br />generally received much less rainfall than those contributing to flow <br /> <br />. <br />above the railway bridge and, consequently, these lower tributaries <br /> <br /> <br />contributed much less to total flood volume than their drainage areas <br /> <br /> <br />alone would indicate. Second, it is unlikely the peak runoffs from all <br /> <br /> <br />or most of the lower tributaries coincided with the passage of the <br /> <br /> <br />mainstream flood peak considering the abruptness of the mainstream flood <br /> <br />peak, In such instances where the main and tributary flood peaks did <br /> <br /> <br />not closely coincide, the tributary flow adds to overall flood volume <br /> <br />but does not add significantly to the peak rate of flow. Third and most <br /> <br /> <br />important, as a result of channel storage of flood waters and of signi- <br /> <br />ficant overland flow (at low velocity) outside of the main stream <br /> <br /> <br />channel in the reach of relatively low and uniform stream gradient below <br /> <br />the railway bridge and above the USGS measuring point, the flood peak <br /> <br /> <br />was attenuated through this stream reach. Thus, the rate of flow at the <br /> <br /> <br />flood peak was less and the total flood volume was greater at the USGS <br /> <br /> <br />measuring point than at the railway bridge, <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <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 />V-5 <br />