Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />,I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />record, however. She could not remember much rain on the afternoon of the 29th, and <br />thought most of the 5.5 inches fell that evening. She recalled steady rain after dark with <br />lots oflightning but not "vicious" like many of their summer thunderstorms. Their gauge <br />was cone shaped with a capacity of around six inches, She believed it had not overflowed, <br />However, several other gauges they read on grazing lands south of their house all . <br />overflowed. Those gauges are not emptied every day, so they may have included rainfall <br />from the previous day. <br /> <br />The water moving down Spring Creek near their house made enough noise that they could <br />hear it running, but the various small dams on their ranch all held. <br /> <br />My confidence in this report is "B" since there was some chance that the gauge could <br />have overflowed. However, we suggest using the 5,5 inch report without modification, It <br />is likely accurate. <br /> <br />Ken McEndaffer <br />61331 State Hiway 71 N, Stoneham <br /> <br />T I1N R 57W Sec. 25 southeast <br />Original report: 2.5" from gauge <br />(point plotted on working map, but <br />was not included on data table) <br /> <br />Mr. McEndaffer could neither confirm or deny the 2.5" report that had been credited to <br />his house, He thought it had likely been more than that, since some of his fences along <br />Two Mile Creek had been washed out, He suggested low confidence in the report, so I <br />will call it "C." <br /> <br />Gary and Penny Naill <br />70008 WCR 132, New Raymer <br /> <br />T IIN R57W Sec, 15 SW <br />Original report: 14 inches (source unknown) <br /> <br />I spoke to them by phone and did not visit their site. They provided enthusiastic but <br />conflicting information. They did not have a rain gauge and had not written down any <br />rainfall amounts, She recalled heavy rain on the afternoon of the 29th and again that <br />evening. They recalled a survey team visiting them, but had no idea where the 14 inch <br />rainfall total may have been based on, She believed they had exceptionally heavy rain, but <br />Gary thought it was "no big deal -- maybe 2 1/2 inches." After some friendly arguing, <br />they decided that they had likely had 8-9 inches of rain, and that some significant rainfall <br />had occurred in the day(s) preceding the storm. However, they had no proof other than <br />they had quite a bit of fence washed out by flooding. Without additional information from <br />the original survey team, I would have to judge the 14 inch report as extremely suspect (C <br />or D). There is insufficient information for this site to offer a better estimate. <br />Dan Clyncke <br />71033 WCR 132, New Raymer <br /> <br />T IIN R57W Sec 2 <br />Original report: 9.5 inches (shown on map <br />but not included in data tabulation) <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />_. <br />