My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00961
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00961
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:56:18 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:47:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/22/2003
Description
Flood Section - Probable Maximum Precipitation Site-Specific Study for the Cherry Creek Reservoir-Study Findings and Recommendations
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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 />l. Colorado extreme precipitation events are significantly smaller in their dePth. <br />duration and aerial coverage than the stonn characteristics of HMR 52 that rely on <br />29 stonns sampled over the eastern I\vo-thirds of the country (See Figure I). <br />2. The major axis of the rainfall pattern extends along the direction of the winds in <br />the stonn cloud layer (+/- 10 degrees). The surface wind direction is 40 to 90 <br />degrees to the right of the cloud layer winds (See Figure 2). In effect, Ihis <br />relationship of meteorology 10 rainfall pattern must be maintained during the <br />transposition of stonns into a basin to keep the transposition process "physically <br />possible". The final PMP design stoml must also maintain this relationship. <br /> <br />Figure I shows thai Colorado stonns are smaller than the H~vlR 52 stonns. The <br />Colorado stonns range from 66% to 91 % of the HMR 52 slonns for area sizes ranging <br />from 5.000 square miles down to 100 square miles. H:-"1R 52 requires the use of its storm <br />sample together with their rainfall distribution curves without offering any other <br />alternative. This finding supports the fact that the use of H\lR 52 within/without curves <br />is inappropriate in the Cherry Creek basin due to major differences between the Colorado <br />stomlS and those used in HMR 52. <br /> <br />Comparison of Average \'rilhin / WilhoUl SlOrm Cun-es for <br />Different Srudy Regions <br />IO-SqtJ;ue~fileAreaSiu <br /> <br />,- <br /> <br />'00 <br /> <br /> <br />_ColoudoFron,R~nll< <br /> <br />, <br />,; <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />1: 1000 <br />i <br />,7- <br /> <br />_CoI.-.r~doE~.'ofF",,,"ill. <br /> <br />:.- <br />'J-. <br />, <br />~ <br /> <br />_Co~)udoEa"<mPlain. <br /> <br />. <br />~ <br /> <br />_S'orm.L'K1IinHMR51 <br /> <br />,. <br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ 65 ro ~ 80 ~ ~ ~ 1001~ <br /> <br />P..-rc..-nt <If !4-h. lUinb.lI Amount. <br /> <br />Figure I Comparison of An:rage Within I Without Storm Curves for Different STUdy Regions <br /> <br />IX <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.