Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />2) Site visits and interviews with residents near the primary core of the stonn, <br /> <br />The 1997 storm survey was conducted as well and as quickly as possible after the Pawnee <br />Creek flood. However, the survey was not conducted by meteorologists or experts on <br />rainfall measurement procedures and gauge exposure. Since the event occurred, many <br />questions have been raised concerning the accuracy and representativeness of rainfall <br />reports. The purpose of these site visits and interviews was to independently evaluate the <br />original rainfall reports and assign levels of confidence to the reports that were assembled <br />after the storm. We feared that this would be quite difficult due to how much time has <br />elapsed since the storm. However, with the cooperation of the local residents, many <br />questions could still be answered. <br /> <br />The following is a rather thorough summary of each site visit and/or phone interview <br />followed by conclusions about data accuracy and confidence. A simple rating system was <br />developed to assign confidence to each observation. "A" represents complete confidence. <br />"B" means reasonable confidence but with some unanswered or unanswerable questions. <br />"c' means the data are uncertainty but contain some useful information. "D" represents <br />almost no confidence, In each case, an explanation is given, <br /> <br />Roger and Peggy Blake (and family) <br />75144 WCR 110, Stoneham <br /> <br />T 9N R 56W' Sec. 3 extreme north edge <br />Original rainfall report: 15. 1 inches from rain <br />gauge accumulations. <br /> <br />Evaluation: <br />This was one of a handful of reports used to define the core of maximum rainfall for the <br />storm. At the time of the 1997 storm survey, this report was given high confidence <br />because it was the only excessive precipitation total (greater than 6 inches) that was based <br />solely on rain gauge accumulation, Family members checked and emptied the small <br />conical gauge (capacity of just over 6 inches) approximately every two hours during the <br />storm and were thus able to report an accumulated storm total. <br /> <br />In interviewing the family, they showed me the 1997 calendar on which a daily rainfall <br />total of 15" had been written, Based on their memories and notes (mother and daughter, <br />Christy, had both helped read the gauge and agreed with each other), rainfall amounts and <br />times of observation were approximately as follows: <br /> <br />12 midnight <br />2 AM MDT 7/30/98 <br />approx 7 AM 7/30/98 <br />TOTAL <br /> <br />5.5" <br />2" <br />1.5" <br />15" <br /> <br />They had just gotten home from Ft. Collins. <br />Gauge nearly but not quite full to the top - still <br />raining hard. <br />Still raining hard. <br />Rain letting up so family went to bed at 2:30 AM <br />They weren't quite sure how they had come up <br />with the 15.1" total reported previously. <br /> <br />7:30 PM MDT 7/29/98 <br />10 PM MDT <br /> <br />Rain Began <br />6" <br /> <br />8 <br />