Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.23 - <br /> <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 />current study are generally lower than those in the MartinlMartin study. There are several reasons, <br />which may account for the differences. TC&B attributes the difference in reported peak flows from <br />design point three to the confluence of the South Platte River to the following: <br /> <br />. The MartinlMartin study used CUHP version E (Reference 20). At the request ofUDFCD, <br />TC&B used CUHPF95 (Reference 21), the latest version ofCUHP. <br /> <br />. The WWE (Reference 6) and MartinIMartin study (Reference 7) applied the area adjustment <br />factors for the lO.year rainfall event to the 100-year rainfall and the 100-year adjustment <br />factors to the 10-year rainfall. <br /> <br />. The MartinlMartin study (Reference 7) used hydro graphs coded into the UDSWM model to <br />represent DPA 0055. TC&B's modeling was unable to duplicate these hydrographs. <br />However, modeling did match the WWE Study (Reference 6) DF A 0055 tributaries within a <br />few cubic feet per second. The input hydrographs that represented DFA 0055 in the <br />MartinIMartin study reported larger peak flows than were determined by TC&B. <br /> <br />Inflows, outflows, and required volumes for detention basins throughout the entire First Creek <br />watershed are shown in Table III-7. <br /> <br />. .- <br /> <br />Figure III-3a through Figure III-3Jshow the peak discharge profiles along the First Creek mainstem <br />for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500.year events. The three conditions presented on each profilc <br />correspond to the required modeling scenarios: Existing Model, Base Model and Future Model. <br />