FLOOD02612 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CONCLUSION GENERAL In any hydrologic study, engineering judgment plays a key role in the interpretation of results. Any statistical analysis performed on a data set cannot be relied upon to exactly predict future events. In this analysis, the predominant factors affecting the ability to jUdge future events are the length of record, the reliability of the methods, and the period for which the future events are to be predicted. The guidelines of the WRC Bulletin #17B, leave it to the jUdgment of the engineer to make the decision as to what information available is reallY important to 1:he analysis. At the Bluffline The original 1973 Corps value lies within the fifty percent confidence interval of both of the 100-year discharges calculated by our firm (wi'th or without taking the effects of the Halligan Reservoir into consideration). Consequently we recommend that the original va,lue for the lOO-year discharge of 17,400 cfs be retained. Near Greeley In applying the guidelines set forth in WRC Bulletin U7B to the gaging data at Greeley, it was decided that due to the shorter length of the record, the effort should be made to extend the data set using the historical information mentioned earlier (ref 4). Since the value calculated by the Corps in their 1973 report for the peak 100 year discharge is within the fifty-percent confidence interval of the value calculated by our firm, we recommend that the value of 9,400 cfs reported by the Corps be retained. The relatively small deviation of the final peak discharges calculated by our firm using the available data to date, to those calculated by the Corps in both the 1973 and 1981 studies is judged as being insufficient evidence to warrant Changing the diSCharge profile calculated in the original 1973 report. Page 11