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 />2910 <br /> <br />II-9 <br /> <br />the lower elevations in the eastern portion (1.38). This departure from <br />standard procedure appears reasonable, and this opinion was expressed on <br />page 12 of the Hydromet review of the USBR study. <br /> <br />In the Hydromet review, different dewpoints and inflow barrier <br /> <br /> <br />heights were used to compute adjustment factors for maximizing and trans- <br /> <br /> <br />posing the June 1964 Montana storm. The dewpoints Hydromet selected were <br /> <br /> <br />for locations 310 miles east-southeast of the storm centers and for different <br /> <br /> <br />elevations. Also, one adjustment factor was used for both the high-elevation <br /> <br /> <br />and low-elevation rainfall, The adjustment factor obtained for the time of <br /> <br /> <br />storm occurrence, i.e., June 7 to 8, was 1.66, which would increase the <br /> <br /> <br />maximized values given at the bottom of Plates 3 and 4 by 13 and 20 percent, <br /> <br /> <br />respectively. This adjustment seems high for such an outstanding storm. <br /> <br /> <br />(It should be noted that the Hydromet report shows 1.47 as the adjustment <br /> <br /> <br />factor, but this was found to be in error and was later corrected to 1.66), <br /> <br />Qualitative Assessment of the PMP Level <br /> <br /> <br />A common procedure for qualitatively evaluating the level of a <br /> <br /> <br />PMP estimate for a specific basin is to compare the estimate with those for <br /> <br /> <br />adjacent or nearby basins, or with values indicated by a generalized PMP <br /> <br /> <br />chart for the region of interest. Such a comparison is presented in <br /> <br /> <br />Table 11-2, much of which was taken from page 13 of the Hydromet review. <br /> <br /> <br />The comparison shows good agreement between the June 1964 storm, as trans- <br /> <br /> <br />posed and maximized in the USBR study (line A) and the PMP estimates for the <br /> <br /> <br />Upper Arkansas Basin (line F) and the extrapolated PMP estimates for the <br /> <br /> <br />Chatfield Project (line G). The generalized estimates of line H are for the <br /> <br /> <br />relatively flat regions to the east of the Upper South Platte River drainage, <br /> <br /> <br />and are not so comparable. <br /> <br />The above comparison suggests that what the USBR study refers to as <br /> <br /> <br />the recommended design storm approximates the general level of PMP for the <br /> <br /> <br />area of the project basin, i.e., 9955 square miles. This opinion was <br /> <br /> <br />expressed on page'15 of the Hydromet review. However, if the June 1964 storm <br /> <br /> <br />values are adjusted by the factor of 1.66 indicated in the Hydromet review, <br /> <br />DAMES & IWOORE <br />