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 />In contrast to results at Kiowa Ck nr Elbert as discussed above, Table 1 indicates good <br />agreement between HEC-I and USGS discharge data for Kiowa Ck at Kiowa. Those results <br />were derived by inputting (into HEC-l) reduced rainfall for the two sub-basins above Elbert as <br />discussed above, By modeling the basin as such, Cell A-3 could be isolated in the model so its <br />affect on producing the USGS discharge at Kiowa could be evaluated, <br /> <br />It is important to note that the rainfall distribution for Cell A-3 was the same as that for cell A- <br />2 (8 in morning rain separated by a period of 3 hours with no rain, and then another 16 in of <br />rain). Thus, the peak discharge for Kiowa Ck at Kiowa (i.e" the peak discharge at Kiowa <br />includes the routed 43,500 cfs from the two sub-basins above Elbert) was driven by the afternoon <br />rain of 16 in vs the total of 24 in. Such a distribution applied to HEC-I adds additional evidence <br />to Mr, John Henz's preliminary evaluation that Cell A-3 had both morning and afternoon dumps, <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />The results ofthis study are not intended to prove that the May 30-31, 1935 A-2 and A-3 storm <br />cells are not valid; rather, the results are intended to augment other evidence as to such, It was <br />felt that although the study was based on a low level of modeling, the results still "raise a flag" as <br />to the accuracy (both in rainfall amount and spatial distribution) of the documented storm cells. <br />More accurate results are likely possible from a large dissection of the Drainage Areas resulting <br />in numerous sub-basins. In that way, detailed hydrologic characteristics of the basin can be more <br />accurately represented, and various rainfall amounts falling on specific areas ofthe basin can be <br />represented, <br /> <br />In addition, verification of rainfall amount via 'reverse modeling" on very small basins (DA < 5 <br />sqmi) and based on paleohydrology (as stated in the Project Scope of Work) will add invaluable <br />information to the analysis. This report provides additional support to the importance of the <br />small basin paleohydrologylhydrologic modeling effort. It can be seen that small basin <br />paleohydrologylhydrologic modeling could "pinpoint" both rainfall depth and location, thereby <br />adding to information on historic storms, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.