TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. SUBJECT: Determination of watershed historic peak flow rates as the basis for detention basin design

Similar documents
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. SUBJECT: Water quality orifice sizing equation for EURV and WQCV detention basins

Table of Contents. Overview... 1

Table of Contents. Overview... 1

CONSISTENCY BETWEEN CUHP AND RATIONAL METHODS James C.Y. Guo, PhD, P.E., and Ben Urbonas, P.E., D.WRD 08/04/2008

Chapter 6. Hydrology. 6.0 Introduction. 6.1 Design Rainfall

DERIVATION AND CALIBRATION OF VOLUME-BASED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR DENVER AREA, COLORADO

Section 600 Runoff Table of Contents

6.0 Runoff. 6.1 Introduction. 6.2 Flood Control Design Runoff

FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5) 1.0 Overview

Chapter 3 Calculating the WQCV and Volume Reduction

Drainage Analysis. Appendix E

M E M O R A N D U M. SUBJECT: UDFCD Position on Water Rights and Regional Stormwater Detention

Appendix F. Flow Duration Basin Design Guidance

Rainfall, Runoff and Peak Flows: Calibration of Hydrologic Design Methods for the Kansas City Area

DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF

APPENDIX IV. APPROVED METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN (NORTH ORANGE COUNTY)

DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 2) STORAGE CONTENTS 1.0 OVERVIEW APPLICATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF STORAGE... 3

Final Drainage Report

FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FALLBROOK FILING NO. 3 Thornton, CO

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY

Engineering Hydrology Class 3

IBS Site Drainage: Senior Design Project

Chapter 12 Storage. Contents. Overview... 1

CUHP 2005 USER MANUAL

HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET 1 PRECIPITATION

Modeling Infiltration BMPs

EFFECT OF RAINGAGE DENSITY ON RUNOFF SIMULATION MODELING by ABSTRACT

Learning objectives. Upon successful completion of this lecture, the participants will be able to describe:

FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR: LOT 1 BLOCK 1 ROLLINS SUBDIVISION FILING #5. Prepared for:

Introduction to Hydrology, Part 2. Notes, Handouts

STORM DRAINS AND IRRIGATION

Table of Contents. 5-5 Release Rates Year Allowable Release Rate WQCV Release Rate EURV Release Rate...

Water Quality Design Storms for Stormwater Hydrodynamic Separators

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART III - MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS Section 105 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND SCOPE 105.1

Hydrologic Study Report for Single Lot Detention Basin Analysis

November 21, City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO (303) RE: Maverik Thornton, CO - Drainage Report

RETENTION BASIN EXAMPLE

Storm Sewer Design. Bob Pitt University of Alabama and Shirley Clark Penn State Harrisburg

Module 3. Lecture 6: Synthetic unit hydrograph

BMP Design Aids. w w w. t r a n s p o r t a t i o n. o h i o. g o v. Equations / Programs

MODULE 1 RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHS WORKSHEET 1. Precipitation

FAST WATER / SLOW WATER AN EVALUATION OF ESTIMATING TIME FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF

Stormwater Management Impacts Resulting from the Volumetric Abstraction of Runoff from Frequent Storms per PADEP CG-1. Geoffrey A. Cerrelli 1, P.E.

Stormwater: Too Simple?

Red Barn R.V. and Boat Storage Weld County, Colorado. Final Drainage Report

Description of the WQ-COSM Computer Model to Generate a Water Quality Capture Volume for Stormwater BMPs

Design Example Handouts. DURANGO DETENTION WORKBOOK LUNCH AND LEARN CITY OF DURANGO Meeting Date: February 7, 2017

San Francisco State University Site 1 Vegetated Infiltration Basin Monitoring Report: Rainy Seasons and

Engineering Hydrology. Class 16: Direct Runoff (DRO) and Unit Hydrographs

Rational Method Hydrological Calculations with Excel COURSE CONTENT

Constructed Wetland Pond T-8

10.0 Storm Sewer Systems

SUMMARY REPORT. Brik Zivkovich, M.S., EIT Graduate Engineering Intern, Master Planning Program

2.0 Rainfall Rainfall Depths and Intensities Hydrologic Basis of Design for Water Quality Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV)...

January 20, Nate Hatleback Project Manager, City of Thornton Development Engineering 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO (303)

Best Management Practices Rational Estimation of Actual Likely Costs of Stormwater Treatment

Basic Hydrology Runoff Curve Numbers

Stormwater design considerations

Activity Calculating Property Drainage

ENGN.4010 ENGINEERING CAPSTONE DESIGN Watershed Analysis. CiA

HYDROLOGIC MODELING CONSISTENCY AND SENSITIVITY TO WATERSHED SIZE

Calibration of Hydrologic Design Inputs for a Small Urban Watershed

Detention Pond Design Considering Varying Design Storms. Receiving Water Effects of Water Pollutant Discharges

What is runoff? Runoff. Runoff is often defined as the portion of rainfall, that runs over and under the soil surface toward the stream

Hydromodification Management Measures

Hydromodification Management Measures

Estimating the 100-year Peak Flow for Ungagged Middle Creek Watershed in Northern California, USA

Key Words: Stormwater, Retention, Detention, Water Quality, Urban, Hydrology.

Runoff Processes. Daene C. McKinney

APPENDIX F RATIONAL METHOD

SAN GORGONIO PASS CAMPUS - PHASE I

APPENDIX E ESTIMATING RUNOFF FROM SMALL WATERSHEDS

Chapter Introduction. 5.2 Computational Standard Methods HYDROLOGY

STORMWATER RUNOFF AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT REVIEW

LARIMER COUNTY STORMWATER DESIGN STANDARDS (ADDENDUM TO THE URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUALS- VOLUMES 1, 2 AND 3)

Table of Contents CHAPTER. Chapter 2 Hydrologic Analysis. 2.1 Estimating Runoff

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN PLANT GASTON GYPSUM POND ALABAMA POWER COMPANY

Hydrologic Analysis of a Watershed-Scale Rainwater Harvesting Program. Thomas Walsh, MS, PhD Candidate University of Utah

If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at or by at

DEVELOPMENT OF A HYDRO-GEOMORPHIC MODEL FOR THE LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED

If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at or by at

CEE3430 Engineering Hydrology

Peak discharge computation

3.3 Acceptable Downstream Conditions

Alternative Analysis Cherry Creek Reservoir West Boat Ramp Parking Lot Water Quality Improvements

DRAINAGE PLAN AND REPORT OLD DENVER ROAD

Introduction. Keywords: Oil Palm, hydrology, HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS. a * b*

1. Stream Network. The most common approach to quantitatively describing stream networks was postulated by Strahler (1952).

Constructed Wetland Channel T-9

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN PLANT BARRY ASH POND ALABAMA POWER COMPANY

Cumulative Precipitation

Green Infrastructure Flood Reduction Computations

Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document ( )

Example 1: Pond Design in a residential development (Water Quantity calculations for a Wet Pond and Wet Extended Detention Pond)

Learn how to design inlet grates, detention basins, channels, and riprap using the FHWA Hydraulic Toolbox and WMS

DIVISION 5 STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA

Georgia s Unified Stormwater Sizing Criteria The Old, the New, and the Misunderstood

Memorandum. MIDS Work Group Barr Engineering Company

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E ESTIMATING RUNOFF FOR SMALL WATERSHEDS

STORMWATER HYDROLOGY

Transcription:

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FROM: Ken MacKenzie and Ryan Taylor SUBJECT: Determination of watershed historic peak flow rates as the basis for detention basin design DATE: June 7, 2012 The purpose of this memorandum is to document the development of the 2012 revision to the historic peak unit flow rates (hereinafter referred to as historic q, in cfs per acre) and associated equations used as a basis for the allowable peak unit discharges from detention basins for flood control; and particularly for full spectrum detention basins (those basins sized to detain the excess urban runoff volume (EURV) as well as the 100-year volume). All of the equations developed in this memorandum were based on CUHP modeling and one-hour rainfall depths from Figures RA-1 through RA-12 of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Rainfall Chapter (USDCM 2001), and are valid only for one-hour rainfall depths of 0.94 2.72 inches. The Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure (CUHP 2005, v1.3.3) was used to evaluate 570 subcatchments from recent UDFCD master planning studies. Subcatchments having a width/length ratio, slope, or size outside one standard deviation of the mean of the initial data set were discarded in order to limit data scatter, leaving a data set of 293 subcatchments for further evaluation. The one-hour rainfall depth corresponding to probability of occurrence for the Denver region can be approximated by those values in Table 1, also shown graphically in Figure 1. Table 1: Average one-hour rainfall depth in the Denver region, as a function of probability of occurrence. Recurrence Interval (Years) Probability of Occurrence Rainfall Depth (Inch) WQCV N/A 0.53 2 0.50 0.95 EURV 0.38 1.07 5 0.20 1.34 10 0.10 1.64 25 4 2.02 50 2 2.32 100 1 2.61 UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 1

One Hour Rainfall Depth (Inches) 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 y = 0.423ln(x) + 0.6609 R² = 1 1% 10% 100% Probability of Occurrence Figure 1: Natural log plot of one-hour rainfall depth vs. probability of occurrence for the Denver region. These one-hour rainfall depths were temporally distributed over a two-hour period to create design storms consistent with CUHP protocol, and the CUHP model was run for all 293 subcatchments and return periods consisting of the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year, with the hydrologic parameters listed in Table 2. Watershed characteristics (e.g., size, shape, slope, location of centroid) were taken directly from the master planning studies. The results of the CUHP modeling are shown in Figures 2 through 4. Table 2: hydrologic parameters used in the CUHP modeling. Soil Group Historic Impervious Percentage Pervious Depression Storage (inch) Impervious Depression Storage (inch) Initial Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Horton's Decay Coefficient (second -1 ) Final Infiltration Rate (in/hr) HSG A 2 0.35 0.1 5.0 070 1.0 HSG B 2 0.35 0.1 4.5 018 0.6 HSG C 2 0.35 0.1 3.0 018 0.5 UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 2

HSG A HISTORIC UNIT RUNOFF RATE q 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 q100 = 7.301E 02ln(x) + 9.455E 01 q50 = 4.728E 02ln(x) + 5.907E 01 q25 = 2.356E 02ln(x) + 2.885E 01 q10 = 2.046E 03ln(x) + 2.467E 02 q5 = 1.244E 03ln(x) + 1.494E 02 q2 = 00E+00 100 Year q 50 Year q 25 Year q 10Y R q 5 Year q 2 Year q 0 50 100 150 200 250 WATERSHED AREA (ACRES) Figure 2: Natural log regression plot of historic q from CUHP modeling for Hydrologic Soil Group A. HSG B HISTORIC UNIT RUNOFF RATE q 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 q100 = 1.237E 01ln(x) + 1.864E+00 q50 = 1.027E 01ln(x) + 1.484E+00 q25 = 7.993E 02ln(x) + 1.150E+00 q10 = 3.996E 02ln(x) + 5.247E 01 q5 = 22ln(x) + 0.272 q2 = 1.281E 03ln(x) + 1.705E 02 100 Year q 50 Year q 25 Year q 10Y R q 5 Year q 2 Year q 0 50 100 150 200 250 WATERSHED AREA (acres) Figure 3: Natural log regression plot of historic q from CUHP modeling for Hydrologic Soil Group B. UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 3

HSG C/D HISTORIC UNIT RUNOFF RATE q 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 q100 = 1.321E 01ln(x) + 2.013E+00 q50 = 1.108E 01ln(x) + 1.628E+00 q25 = 8.842E 02ln(x) + 1.291E+00 q10 = 5.145E 02ln(x) + 7.021E 01 q5 = 3.223E 02ln(x) + 4.236E 01 q2 = 1.443E 03ln(x) + 2.084E 02 0 50 100 150 200 250 WATERSHED AREA (acres) 100 Year q 50 Year q 25 Year q 10Y R q 5 Year q 2 Year q Figure 4: Natural log regression plot of historic q from CUHP modeling for Hydrologic Soil Groups C & D. The historic peak unit runoff rates based on the equations in Figures 2 through 4 are shown graphically in Figures 5 through 7. Note that the maximum historic q for watersheds smaller than 20 acres is held at the rate corresponding to 20 acres, while the minimum historic q for watersheds larger than 2,000 acres is held at the rate corresponding to 2,000 acres. These limits are based on consideration of the limitations of the CUHP method with regard to very small and very large watersheds. CUHP/SWMM modeling of large watersheds containing several spatially distributed full spectrum detention basins demonstrated that the cumulative effect of these spatially distributed detention basins each releasing at almost exactly the historic 100-year flow rate results in the flow rate at the downstream outlet of the watershed increasing to approximately 107% - 108% of the historic rate. The watersheds were modeled with fairly smooth (low n-value) conveyance elements to minimize the effects of channel storage. In reality, the impact of channel storage in vegetated channels is substantial, but to be conservative, it is recommended that the full spectrum detention basin be designed to have a 100-year release rate that is no greater than 90% of the historic value. This CUHP/SWMM research is documented in another technical memorandum available at www.udfcd.org. UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 4

Figure 5: Historic q based on the equations in Figure 2 for Hydrologic Soil Group A and on Denver area rainfall from Table 1. Previous Allowable q from USDCM 2001 shown for comparison only. Figure 6: Historic q based on the equations in Figure 3 for Hydrologic Soil Group B and on Denver area rainfall from Table 1. Previous Allowable q from USDCM 2001 shown for comparison only. UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 5

Figure 7: Historic q based on the equations in Figure 4 for Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D, and on Denver area rainfall from Table 1. Previous Allowable q from USDCM 2001 shown for comparison only. Table 3 provides a complete list of historic q equations as revised by this work for hydrologic soil groups A, B, and C/D for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year return period, while Table 4 provides extreme limits imposed upon those calculated values. Table 3: Equations to determine the peak historic q (in cfs per acre) for a given watershed area (in acres) and six return periods, based on Denver area rainfall from Table 1. Note that the values calculated by these equations must fall within the limits shown in Table 4 and Figures 5 through 7. Return Period Hydrologic Soil Group A Hydrologic Soil Group B Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D 2-Year q 2 = 0 q 2 = -0128 * LN(A) + 17 q 2 = -0144 * LN(A) + 21 5-Year q 5 = -0124 * LN(A) + 15 q 5 = -221 * LN(A) + 0.27 q 5 = -32 * LN(A) + 0.42 10-Year q 10 = -02 * LN(A) + 25 q 10 = -4 * LN(A) + 0.52 q 10 = -51 * LN(A) + 0.7 25-Year q 25 = -236 * LN(A) + 0.29 q 25 = -8 * LN(A) + 1.15 q 25 = -88 * LN(A) + 1.29 50-Year q 50 = -47 * LN(A) + 0.59 q 50 = -0.103 * LN(A) + 1.48 q 50 = -0.11 * LN(A) + 1.63 100-Year q 100 = -73 * LN(A) + 0.95 q 100 = -0.124 * LN(A) + 1.86 q 100 = -0.132 * LN(A) + 2 UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 6

Table 4: High and low limits imposed upon historic unit discharge rate (q, cfs per acre) for watersheds smaller than 20 acres and for watersheds larger than 2,000 acres. Return Period Hydrologic Soil Group A Hydrologic Soil Group B Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D Max q Min q Max q Min q Max q Min q for for for for for for watersheds watersheds watersheds watersheds watersheds watersheds < 20 acres > 2,000 acres < 20 acres > 2,000 acres < 20 acres > 2,000 acres 2 Year 0072 0034 13 08 17 10 5 Year 14 05 0.360 0.222 0.390 0.242 10 Year 91 46 0.627 0.386 0.677 0.420 25 Year 0.270 0.143 0.964 0.595 1.040 0.645 50 Year 0.477 0.257 1.231 0.759 1.327 0.824 100 Year 0.732 0.397 1.489 0.918 1.604 0.996 The work up to this point was based on Denver area rainfall from Table 1. In order to implement this method outside the Denver area, historic q equations based on a one-hour point precipitation value were developed. For the general form of the equation q = αln(a)+β, the coefficients α and β from Table 3 were consolidated into Table 5 in order to perform the regression analysis needed to develop the historic q equations. Table 5: Equation coefficients taken from Table 3. Note: Coefficient α is represented as the absolute value to avoid negative values during analysis. Return Period Hydrologic Soil Group A Hydrologic Soil Group B Hydrologic Soil Group C/D α β α β α β 2 Year 001 01 0128 17 0144 21 5 Year 0124 15 221 0.27 32 0.42 10 Year 02 25 4 0.52 51 0.7 25 Year 236 0.29 8 1.15 88 1.29 50 Year 47 0.59 0.103 1.48 0.11 1.63 100 Year 73 0.95 0.124 1.86 0.132 2 From the regression analysis, the historic q based on one-hour point precipitation can be estimated with Equations 1 through 3. UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 7

Hydrologic Soil Group A: 307 655 346 0.4118 0.8943 0.4789 (1) 0034 q A Hydrologic Soil Group B: 739 69 1.1102 1.0377 (2) 08 q B Hydrologic Soil Groups C & D: / 787 733 1.1922 1.1116 (3) In which: 10 q C/D q A,B,C/D = peak unit flow rate, in cfs/acre P = one-hour point precipitation, in inches A = watershed area, in acres Equations 1 through 3 will produce negative results if the one-hour point precipitation is less than 0.94 inches the low limit shown beneath each equation represents the limit of the validity of the CUHP modeling and should therefore be substituted for the calculated results in cases where the one-hour point precipitation is less than 0.94 inches. Figures 8 through 10 are based on a watershed area of 2.718 acres (Euler s number e, for which the natural log is unity), in order to produce results independent of watershed size. These figures compare the historic q equations based on one-hour point precipitation values to the CUHP-based historic peak unit flow rate, by hydrologic soil group. The point precipitation equations tend to overestimate q for the intermediate return periods, especially the 5- through 25-year return period; this is considered acceptable and necessary in order to accurately estimate the more critical end points (i.e., the 2- and 100-year return periods) without creating unwieldy high order regression equations. UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 8

Hydrologic Soil Group A Peak Historic Runoff, q (cfs per acre) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Table 3 Equations Point Precipitation Equation 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Point Precipitation (in) Figure 8: Comparison between CUHP results and the point precipitation equation for the Hydrologic Soil Group A Hydrologic Soil Group B Peak Historic Runoff, q (cfs per acre) 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 Table 3 Equations Point Precipitation Equation 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Point Precipitation (in) Figure 9: Comparison between CUHP results and the point precipitation equation for the Hydrologic Soil Group B UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 9

Hydrologic Soil Group C/D Peak Historic Runoff, q (cfs per acre) 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 Table 3 Equations Point Precipitation Equation 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Point Precipitation (in) Figure 10: Comparison between CUHP results and the point precipitation equation for the Hydrologic Soil Group C/D. UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 10

Example Problem: A 17-acre Denver area watershed is situated on 43% HSG B and 57% HSG C. Determine: 1. The historic 100-year flow rate from this watershed using the equations from Table 3 and the point precipitation equations, and 2. The historic 100-year flow to be used as the basis for a full spectrum detention basin at the downstream end of the watershed (the detention basin release rate will be 10% less than this value). Analysis: 1. From Table 3, the historic 100-year peak unit flow rate from this watershed is: q 100 = 0.43 * [-0.124 * LN(20) + 1.86] + 0.57 * [-0.132 * LN(20) + 2] q 100 = 0.43 * 1.493 + 0.57 * 1.615 = 1.56 cfs per acre. The total historic flow rate is Q 100 = (1.56 cfs per acre) * 17 acres = 26.6 cfs. Note that LN(20) was used in the unit-discharge equations, even though the watershed is only 17 acres. This limits the calculated historic unit discharge rate to the maximum allowable value. 2. From the point precipitation equation, the historic 100-year unit flow rate from this watershed is: Hydrologic Soil Group B (Equation 2): q 100 = 0.43 * [(-739 * 2.61 + 69) * LN(20) + (1.1102 * 2.61 1.0377)] q 100 = 0.43 * [-0.371 + 1.86] = 0.64 cfs per acre. Hydrologic Soil Group C (Equation 3): q 100 = 0.57 * [(-787 * 2.61 + 733) * LN(20) + (1.1922 * 2.61 1.1116)] q 100 = 0.57 * [-0.3957 + 2] = 0.914 cfs per acre. The total historic flow rate is Q 100 = (0.64 + 0.914) * 17 acres = 26.4 cfs. UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 11

3. To find the historic flow rates to be used as the basis for a full spectrum detention basin at the downstream end of the watershed (the detention basin release rate will be 10% less than this value), use the values from the Max q for watersheds 20 acres row in Table 4: Return Period 20 Acres HSG B 20 Acres HSG C 20 Acres Composite Unit Flow Rate (cfs per acre) 20 Acres Peak Historic Flow Rate (cfs) 2 Year 13 17 0.43 * 13 + 0.57 * 17 = 15 15 * 17 = 0.26 5 Year 0.360 0.390 0.43 * 0.360 + 0.57 * 0.390 = 0.377 0.377 * 17 = 6.05 10 Year 0.627 0.677 0.43 * 0.627 + 0.57 * 0.677 = 0.655 0.655 * 17 = 11.14 25 Year 0.964 1.040 0.43 * 0.964 + 0.57 * 1.040 = 1.007 1.007 * 17 = 17.12 50 Year 1.231 1.327 0.43 * 1.231 + 0.57 * 1.327 = 1.285 1.285 * 17 = 21.85 100 Year 1.489 1.604 0.43 * 1.489 + 0.57 * 1.604 = 1.555 1.555 * 17 = 26.44 If the given watershed in this exercise had been larger than 20 acres, steps 1 (Denver area) or 2 (one-hour point precipitation outside Denver area) would be repeated for each return period. UDFCD Technical Memorandum: Determination of Watershed Historic Peak Flow Rates for Detention Sizing Page 12