Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />5.0 Results <br /> <br />5.1 Hydrologic Analysis <br /> <br />For Tongue Creek, the CWCB Regional Regression equation for the Lower Gunnison River <br />Subregion gave a resulting 100-year peak discharge of3832 cfs. The USGS Regional Regression <br />equation for the Northwest region of Colorado gave 2829 cfs for the 100-year peak discharge. <br />HEC-FFA indicated that the 100-year peak flow would be 2190 cfs (the program output is <br />attached in Appendix E) and the Weibull Method resulted in a peak discharge of 2544 cfs. The <br />2544 cfs peak discharge found using the Wiebull method was determined to be the best <br />candidate for the floodplain study since it resulted in the highest flow value for detailed analysis. <br /> <br />For Cedar Run, approximate 100-year flows were found using the same CWCB and USGS <br />regional regression equations as for Tongue Creek. However, since the Cedar Run drainage basin <br />area increases from 5 square miles to over 6 square miles, multiple flow locations were found. <br />The drainage area for each cross section was found using the HEC-GeoHMS ArcView extension <br />identify contributing area tool. The HEC-HMS configuration described above resulted in runoff <br />from this basin of 3 .11 ems, or 110 cfs. The output for HEC-HMS can be found on the data CD. <br />The result from HEC-HMS was increased by the same amount that the USGS regional <br />regressions equation indicated would be increased for each cross section. This method for <br />determining the flow at multiple flow locations was necessary since the HEC-GeoHMS <br />extension would not successfully generate an HMS project for any point below the upstream <br />study limit. <br /> <br />The table below summarizes the results of the calculations for the regional regression analysis <br />for Tongue Creek and the multiple flow locations for Cedar Run. The cross-section (XS) <br />identifier that is given is the one that was selected in the field data collection. The order they are <br />presented in the table is from upstream to downstream. Those that are lumped together are the <br />upstream and downstream cross-sections of a bridge, culvert, or dam. The Hydrologic <br />Engineering Center's Hydrologic Modeling System results for Cedar Run and the data from the <br />1981 study are also presented. <br /> <br />23 <br />