Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Results of Modeling: <br />Colowyo's Modeliaa of Prospect Pond - 4-16-92 <br />Model based upon a simple composite curve number of 63 used <br />throughout the demonstration. (Members of the hydrology staff who <br />reviewed Juan Garcia's "Curve Number Justification" failed to agree <br />with many of the justifications given) Worse case was based on the <br />assumption that a pit or pica xould be in place to detain much of <br />the runoff from reaching the south Collection Ditch or Prospect <br />Pond. Times of concentration were improperly determined resulting <br />in reduced velocities. <br />Results for a 10 year, 24 hour event: <br />4.5 acre feet total volume reaching the Prospect Pond <br />.2 cfs peak discharge <br />Division's Modeliaa of Prospect Pond - 4-28-92 <br />Model based upon curve numbers of 87 and a9 for unvegetated and <br />undisturbed lands, respectively. Worse case was based on the <br />assumption that the Section 16 pit would be closed and undergoing <br />reclamation. <br />Results for a 10 pear, 24 hour event: <br />22 acre feet total volume reaching the Prospect Pond <br />174 cfs peak discharge <br />Colowyo's Modeliaa of Prospect Poad - 12-14-92 <br />Model based upon a more precise delineation for curve numbers, <br />however, the curve numbers used did not agree the with curve <br />numbers agreed upon in a meeting with the Division (eg. newly <br />topsoiled and planted areas were given a curve number of 49) . <br />Worse case was based upon the assumption that the Section 16 pit <br />would be in place to keep much of the runoff from reaching the <br />South Collection Ditch or Prospect Pond. Times of concentration <br />were properly calculated. <br />Results for a l0 year, 24 hour event: <br />.2 acre feet total volume reaching the Prospect Pond <br />i cfs peak discharge <br />Channel velocities of 6 - 12 fps <br />