Laserfiche WebLink
<br />fl" .A.;. <br /> <br />18. Page 107, In the last paragraph there is a reference to Section 5.4. Where is section 5.4? <br /> <br />A W A response to Question 18, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />This reference should be to Section 5.2. <br /> <br />19, Page 120. Where is table 7,1? Note: it appears that several figures and tables are mislabeled <br />on this page making it difficult to follow. <br /> <br />A W A response to Question 19. <br /> <br />Both references to Table 7.1 on page 120 (First and second paragraphs) should be to Table 10.1, <br />The change is section numbering was not updated from the Draft Report March 2003 in these <br />two paragraphs. <br /> <br />The other references to Figure 10.1 and 10.3 are appropriate. <br /> <br />20. Page 120. Were the other storms besides the 1921 storm adjusted for temporal and spatial <br />envelopment? What were the results? <br /> <br />A W A response to Question 20. <br /> <br />The Depth Duration envelopment curve enveloped all storm values, i,e. all storms were used in <br />the development ofthe temporal envelopment. The maximum rainfall depth for the Cherry <br />Creek drainage basin was computed using each storm's maximization factor along with the <br />average rainfall amount from each storm's clipped isohyetal pattern after critical centering and <br />orientation. The results are presented in Table 10.1. The spatial envelopment factor was only <br />applied to the 1921 storm since it provided the largest average rainfall value for the Cherry Creek <br />drainage basin. The spatial envelopment factor is a linear multiplier. It could also be applied to <br />the other storm's rainfall values but since they were smaller than those provided by the 1921 <br />storm, the spatially adjusted rainfall values would not have influenced the final PMP. <br /> <br />21. Page 120, How was the 10" increase from 24-hours to 72-hours computed? Note: Table 6 <br />in the NWS SSS shows 33.3 inches for the 24 hour and 38.4 inches for the 72 hour lO-sq mi <br />PMP, which would result in about a 5 inch increase, <br /> <br />A W A response to Question 21, <br /> <br />Unfortunately, this typo of 10" vs 10% did not get caught in editing. The 10" in the Final Report <br />should be consistent with the discussion in the remainder of the last paragraph on page 120 that <br />refer to the 1 0% increase that was applied to the 24-hour values to provide rainfall values out to <br />