Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-' <br /> <br />FUe: PMPropics799summary.doc <br /> <br />V~FT <br />--=:=:- <br /> <br />July 21,1999 <br /> <br />",'- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Topics for Technical Meeting Concerning the <br />Site Spedfic Probable Maximum Predpitation (J>.l\'IP) <br />for the Cherry; Creek Drainage in Colorado <br /> <br />1. Original analysis of 1935 storm (Chern Creek & Hale) cannot be easily challenged <br />with the available data, but there are concerns about the depth and areas associated <br />with that storm and the impact they have on later Colorado P/tt/P assumptions. <br />(Doesken) <br /> <br />No COflsensus is reached by the group. The NWS will examine a way to verify V <br />this assumption . <br /> <br />2. Primary overall concern with this P/tt/P is the "storm area" and, to a lesser extent <br />the storm centering in light of the southeasterly surface winds needed to advect the <br />quantity of moisture associated with such an extreme storm. (Doesken) <br /> <br />No consensus is reached by the group. The NWS will examine a way to verify V <br />this assumption <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />3. Have no problem with the depth of rainfall associated with the PMP storm, but <br />troubled by the areas assumed - and these have HUGE impacts on the subsequent <br />results. Appreciate a conservative approach, but this seems excessively conservative <br />especially when compared to any known storm anywhere along the Rocky /tt/ountain <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 />No consensus is reached by the group. The NWS will examine a way to verify v <br />this assumption <br /> <br />4. The March 5, 1999, "peer" review response submitted by the United States Army <br />Corps of Engineers is simply another in-house review prepared by the National <br />Weather Service, is not an independent analysis, and does not address the full range of <br />issues that are typically addressed in a proper independent peer review. (Colorado <br />Senate Joint Resolution 99-013) <br /> <br />The group concensus:y!as that the review performed in March 1999 was a proper <br />and independent review. <br /> <br />5. Since the western limit for the application of HMR 52 has varied from publication <br />to publicatiolt, what is the current western limit and how was it derived? (Tomlinson) <br /> <br />No consensus is reached by the group. <br />this assumption. <br /> <br />J <br />The NWS will examine a way to verify <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />d;';'L:c~c;,c;.;t~~~_:i~~"?i;j~~~~0c~';._",;:'" . <br /> <br />..;.... <br /> <br />....:..... _.-._-- <br /> <br />. -.:' '-'~'"" '. ..;. <br />..~:: -.i:i~;~.0:':;;:;.c..~'.:.. <br />