Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />,; <br /> <br />i:~ <br /> <br />. I <br />Fzk: PMPtopic:s799sum,nary.doc <br /> <br />v~F-T <br /> <br />July 2.1,1999 <br /> <br />-- <br />i <br />topics for Tech~ical Meeting Concerning the <br />Site ~pecific Probabl~ Maximum Precipitation (pl'tIP) <br />ifor the Cherry; Creek Drainage in Colorado <br />I . <br /> <br />: il <br /> <br />1. Original analysi~ of 1935 storm (Cherrv Creek & Hale) cannot be easily chaII.'!nged <br />with the available i(l.ta., but there are concerns about the depth and areas associated <br />with that storm ani! the impact they have on later Colorado PfttfP assumptions.. <br />(DoeskenJ I <br /> <br />i <br />No consensus: is reached by tJ?e group. The NWS will examine a way to verify v <br />, this assumpti'ln . <br />I <br />, <br /> <br />'1 <br />~~ <br /> <br />2. Primary overall 40ncern with this PMP is the "storm area" and, to a lesser ~"Xtent <br />the storm centering 'in light of the south~asterly surface winds needed to advect the <br />I <br />quantity of moisture associated with such an extreme storm (Doesken) <br /> <br />No consensus I is reached by the group. The NWS will examine a way to verify V <br />this assumpti~n <br />I <br />3. Have no proble';' with the depth of rainfall associated with the PMP storm, but <br />troubled by the are~ assumed - and these have HUGE impacts on the subsequ.ent <br />results. Appreciate ~ conservative approach, but this seems excessively conservativE~ <br />especially when compared to any known storm anywhere along the Rocky Jrfountaill~ <br />front from northern New Mexico to Montana. Physically, how could such large areas <br />be affected, with a: north-south orientation, on the downwind (under most likely <br />extreme precipitation: scenarios) side of a significant topographic barrier. (Doesken) <br /> <br />I <br />No consensus1is reached by the group. The NWS will examine a way to verify V <br />this assumptioh <br />i <br />I <br />4. The March 5, 1999, ''peer'' review response submitted by the United States Army <br />Corps of Engineers i is simply another in-house review prepared by the National <br />Weather Service, is n~t an independent analysis, and does not address the fun ran:ge of <br />issues that are typicfzny addressed in a proper independent peer review. (Colorado' <br />Senate Joint Resoluti,~n 99-023) <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />The group coq.census~as that the review performed in March 1999 was a proper <br />and independe~t review. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />5. Since the western: limit for the application of HMR 52 has varied from publication <br />to publication, what ~ the current western limit and how was it derived? (Tomlinson) <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />J <br />No consensus iis reached by the group. The NWS will examine a way to verify <br />this assumption. ' <br /> <br />~~L,e,'cc;~~[~~=~"~;~~,c..;...... <br /> <br />'I <br /> <br />-.-.:.. <br /> <br />,," , <br />. ",. * <br />. .*"~ . , . '-. <br />~:."~~--.:j-}'-:,0::'::"~=~~: <br />