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 />and for Northeast Canon Drainage. The hydrologic analysis contained in the <br />Army Corp of Engineers "Floodplain Information Report, Arkansas River Basin <br />in Florence, Colorado," 1978 (Reference 4), summari zes di scharge- frequency <br />data for the Arkansas River in Canon City. The hydrologic method consisted <br />of a statistical gage data analysis of the USGS gage station in Canon City. <br />COM supplemented this analysis with three additional years of gage data and <br />found that the resulting flows were within the 90-percent confidence limi ' <br />of the CaE frequency-discharge curve (see Figure 2). For this reason, the <br />flow rates, as developed by the Corp of Engineers, were recommended for use <br />in the fl ood insurance study of Canon Ci ty (reference our 1 etter to FEt1A <br />dated March 16, 1981). These flows have been presented in Table 1. <br /> <br />Existing literature was also reviewed for Northeast Canon Drainage. A <br />lOa-year floodplain study was carried out by Great Divide Engineering for <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which was completed in March 1981. <br />The study util i zed the Soil Conservation Servi ce "Procedures for <br />Determining Peak Flows in Colorado" (Reference 9). The report and <br />floodplain study has been reviewed and accepted by CWCB. COM reviewed the <br />calculations and methodology applied in the study and found no <br />discrepencies or errors in the application of the SCS method in this basin. <br />For this reason the peak discharge for the lOa-year frequency was <br />recommended for use in the Flood Insurance Study. COM computed flow rates <br />for the 10- and 50-year frequencies since the eWeB study did not develop <br />these flows. The ses method and basic drainage basin characteristics as <br /> <br /> <br />8 <br />