My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WMOD00279
CWCB
>
Weather Modification
>
Backfile
>
WMOD00279
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2009 2:29:19 PM
Creation date
7/18/2007 2:18:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Weather Modification
Title
Applied Weather Associates Responses to Corps of Engineers Questions on the AWS Study of Cherry Creek PMP, Sept 2006
Prepared For
USACE
Prepared By
Applied Weather Associates
Date
1/29/2007
County
Douglas
Weather Modification - Doc Type
General Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />,~. <br /> <br />~!I" <br /> <br />Had adjusted rainfall amounts from the Springbrook storm been closer to or exceeded other <br />adjusted rainfall amounts, a detailed evaluation of the storm characteristics would have been <br />completed to determine ifthis storm that occurred 550 miles north of the Cherry Creek drainage <br />basin was indeed transpositionable to the Cherry Creek location. The HMR 55A discussion on <br />page 26 indicates that there was a "sparsity of measurements" that resulted in a very circular <br />shape to the isohyetal pattern. Potentially this analysis could produce rainfall values over <br />various area sizes that are too large. A reanalysis of the isohyetal pattern may be desirable. <br /> <br />27. Appendix G, Response to Schreiner Additional comment 1. Has the response been <br />prepared? <br /> <br />A W A response to Ouestion 27. <br /> <br />The following statement was included in the Final Report PowerPoint presentation: <br /> <br />Mr. Schreiner states that barrier moisture depletion adjustments were applied in the HMR 55A <br />analysis and therefore should not be applied again to adjust the NWS PMP values. <br />If appropriate barrier adjustments were incorporated into HMR 55A, then an additional <br />adjustment should not be made. <br /> <br />In the A W A response to Mr Schreiner Review Comment in Appendix G ofthe Report, the <br />following statement is made: <br /> <br />"Mr. Schreiner states that barrier moisture depletion adjustments were applied in the HMR 55A <br />analysis and therefore should not be applied again to adjust the NWS PMP values. The explicit <br />barrier adjustments incorporated in the HMR 55A are not discussed in HMR 55A nor were they <br />explicitly discussed in the NWS FO! material. " <br /> <br />There is nowhere in HMR 55A that provides information on what barrier adjustments were <br />made for the Cherry Creek basin location. Using the inflow wind direction for the Cherry <br />Creek basin location shown in Figure 3,3, page 67, in HMR 55A and in Figure 3.17, page 30, of <br />the Final Report, the inflow wind direction can be from the northeast clockwise to southeast, <br />basically easterly, Figure 3.4 in HMR 55A shows the smoothed barrier elevation map used in <br />HMR 55A. An easterly inflow wind into the Cherry Creek drainage basin does not cross any <br />barriers using this smoothed map. Figure 2.2 provides elevations for important storms and adds <br />a "B" beside the elevation to indicate barrier elevation, Neither the Cherry Creek 1935 storm <br />nor the Plum Creek 1965 storm (the closest historic storms to the Cherry Creek drainage basin) <br />have a "B" annotation beside the elevation. Hence, is appears that no barrier adjustments were <br />applied to the Cherry Creek drainage basin location. <br /> <br />28, appendix G, Response to Doeskens Comment 6. Where is that data for the Big Elk <br />Meadows and Big Thompson storms? <br /> <br />A W A response to Ouestion 28. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.