Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />- 8 - <br /> <br /> <br />Lou Schreiner, BOR- Refers to paragraph 7 in the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) definition of e <br />PMP (content of that reference not captured) <br /> <br />Steve Spann, Spann Engineering - Questions regarding 'barrier depletion' and its application. If we use the <br />NWS PMP w/out barrier adjustment, what are the results? What ensued was a discussion regarding <br />orographic adjustments to the PMP (whether to add or subtract?) Not about numbers to be adjusted but the <br />concept of adjustments techniques was discussed. <br /> <br />Larry Lang, CW CB - Stated that he respected the technical credentials of all that were involved however, <br />that we must conclude the meeting. <br /> <br />Steve Spann, Spann Energy - Made statements that policy will dictate the benefit/cost of any decisions <br />ultimately made. He further expressed our ability and need to take advantage of new science and technology <br />in these problems? Finally, he pointed out that we need to get an idea of the real risks involved in the project. <br />We need to truly defme the problem then encircle the problem. Spann pointed out that discussion needs to <br />shift to policy-making discussion. The current federal policies embrace a zero risk and zero loss policy that <br />needs to be more of a risk analysis and measured against cost effectiveness and reasonable risks. The BOR is <br />moving towards risk analysis and we need to take advantage of the new science and technology. <br /> <br />Bill Miller USACE - What is also important in this item is what will be the temporal distribution of the <br />precipitation, because that will have impacts on what the final PMF is. <br /> <br />Larry Lang - We will get a 'Final' draft to all reviewers; May 16th, 2003 is the final due date for technical <br />review comments by the National Weather Service, Advisory Committee and the TRP. We will include all <br />comments in the final report and they will be addressed to the extent possible in the Final Report. The tit <br />Advisory Committee will need to work with the congressional delegation to get language added to the House <br />Report that will enable the Corps the latitude to review the 2003 A W A "Site Specific Probable Maximum <br />Precipitation Study for the Cherry Creek basin" and start the ensuing Probable Maximum Precipitation Study. <br />Larry Lang thanked all for attending and concluded the meeting. <br /> <br />Meeting Conclusions and Statements: <br /> <br />Three primary factors were found in the A W A team site~specific study results <br />?? Moisture depletion by the Palmer and Kiowa barriers <br />?? Spatial distributions of extreme rainfall <br />?? Orographic effects within the basin <br /> <br />Comparison - A W A team & NWS PMP Study findings: <br /> <br />24 hours 72 hours <br />NWS PMP values 21.1 inches 24.7inches <br />AWA team PMP values 14.0 inches 15.4 inches <br />Change 34% lower 38% lower <br />Applying the AWA team findings to the 1995 NWS stqdy results for basin average PMP.lfyou subtract out <br />factors that A W A believes are more appropriate for the Cherry Creek basin you would end up with the <br />numbers in red. <br /> <br />-NWS PMP <br />-Barrier depletion -10% <br />-No orographic increase - 9% <br /> <br />24 hours <br />21.10" <br />18.99 " <br />17.28 " <br /> <br />72 hours <br />24.70" <br />22.23 " <br />20.22" <br /> <br />e <br /> <br /> <br />Flood Protection? Water Project Planning and Finance? Stream and Lake Protection <br />Warer Supply Protection? Conservation Planning <br />