Laserfiche WebLink
<br />analysis was used to develop discharge-frequency data for <br />this stream. <br /> <br />The 10-, 50-, 100- and sOO-year frequency discharges, as <br />obtained from regression lines in Figure 2, were plotted on <br />discharge-probability paper in Figure 3, for a drainage area <br />of 21 square miles. The discharge obtained for the sOO-year <br />frequency event from an envelope line of the gage data in Figure <br />2 is 700 cfs for a 21 square mile drainage area. A line passing <br />through this point was drawn parallel to the discharge-probability <br />line shown in Figure 3. The extension of this line gives a <br />mean annual peak dis~~~~ ~ ~ cfs. Using the gage records <br />"- <br />and deleting the highest and the lowest recorded events, <br />, ~. <br />the mean d~scharge from 370, 504 and 356 ~s 410 cfs. The <br />...... <br />10-, 50-, 100- and sOO-year discharges for the above distribution <br />are 500, 590, 625 and 700 cfs respectively and are recommended <br />for use in this study. The recommended discharges at the mouth <br />(drainage area 26 square miles) of West Tenmile Creek were <br />obtained by comparison with above discharges using area exponents <br />as reported in Equations (5-8). <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />.LJ ~. <br />~~ <br />~ <br /> <br />The 10-, 50- and 100-year frequency discharges at the mouth <br />of West Tenmile Creek were calculated as 590, 700, and 750 <br />cfs respectively. The corresponding discharges reported in <br />(Ref. 11) are 500, 690 and 780 cfs respectively. Due to the <br />availability of additional gage data since the completion of <br />that report, the discharges calculated here are recommended for <br />use in this study. <br /> <br />SUMMARY <br />The drainage area and the recommended frequency discharges <br />for the streams studied in detail are given in Table 3 for the <br />locations indicated along each stream. The study reaches <br />covered in this report are shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6. <br /> <br />-9- <br />