Home | Abstract | Intro | Page 1 | Page 2 | Results | Conclusions | References | Acknowledgements
Results:
HEC-HMS produces an output for the 2-year 24-hour
storm that is summarized Table 10:
Table 10 - HEC-HMS Output for the 2-Year Event, Basin 1 Only
Hydrologic Element | Discharge
Peak cfs |
Time of Peak | Total
Volume acre-ft |
Drainage
Area mi2 |
Sub-basin 5 | 90.0 | 17 Dec 02 00:15 | 10.26 | 0.215 |
Reach 1 | 89.3 | 17 Dec 02 00:15 | 10.24 | 0.215 |
Sub-basin 1 | 29.4 | 17 Dec 02 00:35 | 5.06 | 0.107 |
Sub-basin 7 | 188.9 | 16 Dec 02 23:55 | 11.14 | 0.232 |
Sub-basin 2 | 52.6 | 17 Dec 02 00:25 | 7.65 | 0.161 |
Sub-basin 6 | 156.3 | 16 Dec 02 23:55 | 9.22 | 0.192 |
Sub-basin 3 | 91.6 | 17 Dec 02 00:20 | 12.23 | 0.257 |
Sub-basin 4 | 36.6 | 16 Dec 02 24:00 | 2.43 | 0.051 |
Sink 1 | 449.3 | 16 Dec 02 23:55 | 57.98 | 1.22 |
Total volume of runoff contributed, time of peak,
and peak flows are calculated via a simulation for the 2-year 24-hour storm.
Peak flows occur around midnight on December 16 for all sub-basins –
approximately 12 hours after the storm begins.
After simulation of 3 types of storms with 2 different basin models, the following results were obtained for total volume runoff to the lake. Peak discharge flows are calculated at the sink (ditch entrance into the lake):
Table 11 - HEC-HMS Output Summary
Scenario | Event Storm | Peak
Discharge cfs |
Peak Time | Total
Volume Added acre-ft |
Drainage
Area mi2 |
2 Year | 439 | 12/16/02 23:55 | 58.0 | 1.22 | |
50 Year | 1400 | 12/16/02 23:55 | 179 | 1.22 | |
100 Year | 1810 | 12/16/02 23:55 | 229 | 1.22 | |
2 Year | 463 | 12/16/02 24:00 | 81.9 | 1.72 | |
50 Year | 1480 | 12/16/02 23:55 | 253 | 1.72 | |
100 Year | 1910 | 12/16/02 23:55 | 323 | 1.72 |
In addition to calculating water contributions from land runoff, it is crucial to add the volume of water that falls directly on the lake surface. For a lake area of 134 acres (see Table 1), the volume of water added can be calculated for each event storm:
Table 12 – Volume of Water Added Through Direct Precipitation on the Lake
Event Storm | Precipitation in |
Volume
Added acre-ft |
2-Year | 2.7 | 30.2 |
50-Year | 5.5 | 61.4 |
100-Year | 6.5 | 72.6 |
Compiling this information with data from Table 11 gives us a grand total of volume added to the lake for each storm, with and without runoff from Basin 2. This data is shown in Table 13.
Scenario | Event Storm | Total
Volume acre-ft |
Total
Volume m2 |
Basin 1 | 2 Year | 88.2 | 109,000 |
50 Year | 240 | 296,000 | |
100 Year | 302 | 373,000 | |
Basin 1 & 2 Combined | 2 Year | 112 | 138,000 |
50 Year | 314 | 387,000 | |
100 Year | 396 | 489,000 |
Malcolm Pirnie created an elevation-volume
relationship in their TMDL report. Based
on this relationship, when a specified volume is added to the lake, elevation
can be predicted. These can be seen
in Tables 14 and 15 and Figures O and P, which predict lake elevation in
response to 2-year, 50-year and 100-year 24-hour event storms.
It is important to note that peak runoff of sub-basins 8, 9 and 10 (those that discharge into the ditch) sometimes exceed the ditch’s capacity of 45 cfs. Cross sections will need to be repaired in order to accommodate peak flows:
Table 16 - Ditch Overflow Data
Hydrologic Element | Discharge Peak | Time of Peak | Total Volume | Drainage Area |
2-Year | ||||
Subbasin-9 | 52.5 | 17 Dec 02 00:25 | 7.60 | 0.160 |
Reach-2 | 52.2 | 17 Dec 02 00:35 | 7.57 | 0.160 |
Subbasin-8 | 136 | 17 Dec 02 00:10 | 13.3 | 0.278 |
Ditch 1 | 151 | 17 Dec 02 00:20 | 20.8 | 0.438 |
Subbasin-10 | 24.6 | 17 Dec 02 00:20 | 3.18 | 0.0670 |
Ditch 2 | 173 | 17 Dec 02 00:20 | 240 | 0.505 |
50-Year | ||||
Subbasin-9 | 166 | 17 Dec 02 00:25 | 23.5 | 0.160 |
Reach-2 | 166 | 17 Dec 02 00:35 | 23.4 | 0.160 |
Subbasin-8 | 429 | 17 Dec 02 00:10 | 41.0 | 0.278 |
Ditch 1 | 479 | 17 Dec 02 00:20 | 64.2 | 0.438 |
Subbasin-10 | 78.1 | 17 Dec 02 00:15 | 9.80 | 0.067 |
Ditch 2 | 549 | 17 Dec 02 00:20 | 73.9 | 0.505 |
100-Year | ||||
Subbasin-9 | 213 | 17 Dec 02 00:25 | 30.0 | 0.160 |
Reach-2 | 213 | 17 Dec 02 00:35 | 29.9 | 0.160 |
Subbasin-8 | 550 | 17 Dec 02 00:10 | 52.4 | 0.278 |
Ditch 1 | 616 | 17 Dec 02 00:20 | 82.1 | 0.438 |
Subbasin-10 | 100.5 | 17 Dec 02 00:15 | 12.5 | 0.067 |
Ditch 2 | 707 | 17 Dec 02 00:20 | 94.6 | 0.505 |
Even though the ditch
cannot currently accommodate peak runoff flows, I assumed full capture of runoff
from the watershed in order to create a worst-case scenario in terms of possible
flood damage (to homes on the lakefront). In
addition, these values create estimates that may aid in upgrading the ditch in
the future if the homeowners wish to capture all potential runoff from the
adjacent basin.
Home | Abstract | Intro | Page 1 | Page 2 | Results | Conclusions | References | Acknowledgements