Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Comparing the oriqinal hvdrographs with tile modifi~ s~ the peak dise~arae on <br /> <br /> <br />the LowI!!r Main Stem redu~ by lOOO cfs, Deak flow on Tributary "0 1 unaff~t"", <br /> <br />and th.. peak ,Uscharqe on t~e Lower Plain Stem reduce~ by 500 cfs. <br /> <br />TIle HBC-2 <br /> <br />split flow option lIOII1/1 have redu~ the Lower Main Stell peale /lllIeltarqe hV lOOO <br /> <br />cfs anll not by the correct amount of 500 efs. <br /> <br /> <br />.PUT FLOW REACH <br /> <br />r <br />i <br />'; <br />c <br />i <br />!. <br />i <br /> <br />(' <br /> <br />FIGURE 4 <br /> <br />Consideration must alllO he given to the effect of storaqe routinqs. '!'lIe <br /> <br />eff"",t of routinq a fico" waYe is 1:0 r....uee the peale /liseharge. 'l'herefor.. a <br /> <br />peak lIischarge further downstream based "n routing will oot hi! reduced hV the <br /> <br />total amount that was lost upstr..am. <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />l6 <br />