My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Search
DWR_2717593
DWR
>
Dam Safety
>
2015
>
03
>
DWR_2717593
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2017 11:09:13 AM
Creation date
3/3/2015 11:31:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Dam Safety
Document Date
2/27/2015
Document Type - Dam Safety
Report
Division
5
Dam ID
040110
Subject
CARRIAGE HILLS #2 (LOWER) DAM - FAILURE FORENSIC REPORT REVISED
DWR Send/Recipient
DSB
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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).
View images
View plain text
CARRIAGE HILLS NO. 2 DAM, Dam Failure Forensic Investigation Report Page 30 <br />February 27, 2015 <br /> <br />Figure 22: CDOT/Jacobs HEC‐HMS model Sept. 2013 Big Thompson River hydrograph above Lake Estes (model reach R330) <br />represents total inflow to Lake Estes except for Fish Creek (BT05) and ungaged side inflows (BT06, 1.123 sq. mi.) (UTC time). <br /> <br />7.5.1.4 Fish Creek Hydrology Report, Matrix Design Group, August 2014: Matrix Design Group provided a <br />valuable contribution towards estimating the peak flow in Fish Creek both above and below the Carriage Hills <br />No. 2 Dam. They used 38 surveyed high water marks along Fish Creek and a post‐flood HEC‐RAS model to best‐ <br />fit water surface profiles corresponding to the maximum flood. Matrix Design Group was primarily concerned <br />with the natural (i.e. absent dam breach) flood flow on Fish Creek for the purpose of updating flood frequency <br />estimates. Matrix estimated a range of Fish Creek peak flows from 800‐2000 cfs upsteam of the Carriage Hills <br />dams, and 2000‐4800 cfs downstream of the dams. Matrix scaled their best estimate upstream of the dam to <br />the total basin size and thereby provided a best estimate natural (i.e. without dam breach) peak of 2400 cfs at <br />the mouth of Fish Creek. This Sept. 2013 peak estimate is more than double their recommended revised 100‐YR <br />flow of 990 cfs. Figure 23 is taken from the Matrix August 2014 report and compares Fish Creek peak flow <br />estimates from various sources. Matrix Design Group’s 2400 cfs estimate removes the effect of the Carriage <br />Hills dam breach by scaling the peak from estimated Fish Creek flows above the dam. The CDOT estimates are <br />from Jacobs’ HEC‐HMS model, which solely accounts for rainfall‐driven runoff and not for the dam breach (the <br />cumulative 10‐day model estimate of 1994 cfs is more relevant to our study). The NRCS peak flow estimates are <br />indirect flow estimates on Fish Creek downstream of the Carriage Hills dams and so should account for the <br />Carriage Hills No. 2 dam breach flood. Matrix Design Group reports that the NRCS revised their original estimate <br />of 6900 cfs down to 4800 cfs after better representing backwater effects from Lake Estes. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.