Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~:..~?~ <br /> <br />ie",r <br />. <br /> <br />li <br /> <br />Ii". <br />t~. <br />i'" <br />},1l <br />If'.>. <br /> <br />~....> <br />t~,~..- <br />~ <br />E: <br />~ <br />I <br />i~.l <br />~'D; _. <br />(~.'~~ <br />~~. <br />,""" <br />t, ~. <br /> <br />Another comparison was made with the lOO-year fully developed <br /> <br />flows determined by UD&FCD. The UD&FCD valuesr shown in Table 6, <br /> <br />were determined from a more detailed analysis while this study was <br /> <br />of a much less detailed nature. This difference may account for <br /> <br />the higher values determined in this study. <br /> <br />Based on this analysis, it is recommended that the Northfield <br /> <br />flows developed by this study be used, as they are consistent with <br /> <br />the methods recommended in the USDCM. For Niver Creek, it is recom- <br /> <br />mended that the UD&FCD fully developed flows be used for both the <br /> <br />lO-year and lOO-year recurrence intervals. Fifty year and 500-year <br /> <br />discharges at each design point should be read from the log <br />~" <br />~. probability extrapolation of the lO-year and lOO-year flows. See <br /> <br />Table 5 for a full comparison of the values determined by this <br /> <br />c, study and those developed in previous studies. Also, Figure 4 <br /> <br />, <br />;: <br />}--. <br />~,. <br />Ii:' <br />f <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />, <br />f <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />[ <br />k <br />~, <br />;."' <br /> <br />shows discharge/area curves for each creek. <br /> <br />{'~~ 4 ~nMe.M~ <br />c. G. Swanson <br />