Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />'. <br />I <br />'I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i I <br />'. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />the reservoir. These assumptions are presented below: <br /> <br />1. Assumed the reservoir to be full to the spillway crest elevation before flood <br />routing. <br /> <br />2. Assumed the valves operating the low level outlets were closed. <br /> <br />3. Storage capacity from the bottom of the reservoir to an elevation of 10,392 <br />feet was obtained from the City of Victor. <br /> <br />4. Assumed a storage capacity above elevation 10,392 feet based on the area <br />obtained from the United States Geological Survey Pike's Peak quadrangle <br />map. This map has a scale of 1 inch = 2,000 feet and a 20-foot contour <br />interval and photo revised in 1984. <br /> <br />5. Upstream reservoirs were assumed full (due to anticedentent moisture and <br />runoff condition) and routing through these reservoirs (Colorado Springs No. <br />7 and 8) was not evaluated, that is no attenuation of flood peaks was <br />credited to those upstream reservoirs. This is in keeping with usual <br />conservative engineering practices. <br /> <br />Based on these assumptions the results of the hydrologic analysis are summarized <br />below: <br /> <br />Storm Event <br /> <br />Peak Discharge <br />cfs <br /> <br />Runoff Volume <br />(acre-feet) <br /> <br />24-hour General PMF <br />24-hour 1/2 General PMF <br />6-hour Local PMF <br />6-hour 1/2 Local PMF <br />24-hour 100-year <br /> <br />7,272 <br />3,636 <br />2,480 <br />1,240 <br />680 <br /> <br />15,927 <br />7,964 <br />8,172 <br />4,086 <br />1,477 <br /> <br />Stage/storage and area capacity curves used for the reservoir routing are presented <br />on Figure 5.2. The outflow curve for the existing emergency spillway is also <br />presented on Figure 5.2. <br /> <br />33 <br />