My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD10348
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD10348
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:13:10 AM
Creation date
10/23/2007 4:27:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Clear Creek
Community
Clear Creek County
Basin
South Platte
Title
Hydrological Analysis - Type 15 FIS - Clear Creek County
Date
9/1/1990
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />rainfall event to exceed the infiltration rates in the <br />majority of Clear Creek basin upstream from Lawson. <br />Infrequent rainfall events with intensities exceeding <br />infiltration rates for longer durations would result in <br />significantly higher runoff volumes and peak discharges. This <br />would result in a high positive skew which is not inherent in <br />the Clear Creek basin streamflow records. Therefore , it is <br />believed that the use of a rainfall/runoff model is a <br />reasonable method to refine the rainfall discharge frequency <br />relationship. <br /> <br />CWCB Comment #2. <br /> <br />How were snowmelt flows arrived at? Was a separation of <br />rainfall and snowmelt peaks performed for the two stream <br />gages? It was not documented whether all of the annual peaks <br />for the Lawson and Golden gages were taken to be snowmelt <br />peaks without questions or whether the gage records were <br />examined to determine which flows were snowmelt-caused and <br />which were rainfall-caused. One thought was that perhaps <br />there was no need to derive synthetic rainfall peaks if one <br />just used the rainfall peaks that resulted from separating <br />rainfall and snowmelt peaks in the gage records. Did you find <br />actual rainfall peaks in your review of the gage records? If <br />so, why were they not used, along with the separate snowmelt <br />peaks in your analysis? <br /> <br />Corps Response #2. <br /> <br />Snowmelt flows at various locations along Clear Creek <br />were based on relationships between drainage area and mean <br />flood logarithm and standard deviation of the logarithms. <br />Those relationships were derived by analysis of the streamflow <br />records at the Lawson and Golden gages. The streamflow <br />records were obtained from the USGS Open File Report 82-426 <br />which contained annual peak discharges separated for both <br />snowmelt and rainfall peaks. Appendix A, in our revised <br />report, contains the peak discharges used in our analysis. <br /> <br />CWCB Comment #3. <br /> <br />Were the data and the procedures used to separate <br />rainfall and snowmelt peaks those described by Elliot, Jarrett <br />and Ebling of the USGS in their report entitled "Annual <br />Snowmel t and Rainfall Peak Flow Data on Selected Foothills <br />Region Streams, South Platte River, Arkansas River, and <br />Colorado River Basins, Colorado." Open File Report 82-426? <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.