Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />design storms that were locally based, but this would require substantial <br />funding and likely depart from NOAA based documentation, so the sponsors <br />decided to not proceed beyond the TEA analysis herein. <br /> <br />2. Eldorado Stream GaQe Data. The research revealed that the Eldorado Stream <br />Gage had a substantial record of daily flows and was primarily used for <br />management of water distribution to irrigation ditches. While peaks had <br />been recorded, the gage had never been calibrated for flows greater than <br />600 cfs and had a rock control sill which had moved during floods. <br /> <br />The use of the gage data for flood statistics should probably be considered <br />more qualitative and a reasonableness check. The sponsors decided that we <br />shouldn't proceed further with gage investigation. <br /> <br />Review of the hydrology modeling herein, the Denver Water records, and <br />inadvertent storage upstream of the rail line revealed that the gage record <br />reflected substantial inadvertent storage, and thus cannot be used, per <br />regulations. <br /> <br />3. Flood of Mav 1969. The 1969 event was investigated. The Denver data for <br />Gross indicated that the upstream flood was entirely trapped in the reservoir. <br />The USBR provided their files for rainfall data and analysis of the 1969 <br />event. CU provided 15 minute rainfall data for the Boulder Creek watershed. <br />While there were daily rain gage readings within the basin, there were no 5 <br />or 15 minute rain data. Review of 1969 isopluvial maps from the USBR <br />indicated that there could be a wide range of interpretation, with a resultant <br />wide range of estimated model flows. Henz indicated that he might be able <br />to review other data and construct detailed rainfall patterns at various <br />locations in the watershed. The sponsors decided not to pursue this <br />calibration concept further due to the expense and likely questionable results. <br /> <br />4. Uooer Basin ModelinQ. Upon review of the Corps' model data for the <br />mountains, TEA decided it was better to completely review all data for <br />consistency to UDFCD/Boulder standards and correctness. Only the outline <br />of the basins and element numbers were kept. <br /> <br />CONSULTATIONS <br /> <br />Numerous consultations with government and private agencies have taken place, <br />highlighted as follows: <br /> <br />· City of Boulder and Boulder <br />County <br /> <br />-CADD base topographic maps <br />-Rainfall criteria for frequent events <br /> <br />1-7 <br />