Laserfiche WebLink
<br />rainfall would have been even smaller for this case. Comparisons of FFG and basin-maximum <br /> <br />radar rainfall would have been more appropriate to evaluating the .flash flood threat for this event <br /> <br />due to the small space and time scales of the flood-producing thunderstorm relative to the larger <br /> <br />scales at which FFG is estimated. The forest fire in the lower portion of the basin two months <br /> <br />earlier altered the runoff characteristics of the basin and likely contributed to the severity of the <br /> <br />flood. <br /> <br />Acknowledgments, Th,e Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District rain gauge <br /> <br />data was graciously supplied by Edward Brandes of the National Center for Atmospheric <br /> <br />Research. Comments of the re,viewers greatly improved the manuscript and are appreciated. <br /> <br />REFERENCES <br /> <br />Brandes, E., 1. Vivekanandan, and J. Wilson, 1997: Radar rainfall estimates of the Buffalo Creek <br /> <br />flash flood using WSR.88D and polarimetric radar data. Preprints, 28th Con! on Radar <br />Meteor" Austin, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc" 123-124. <br /> <br />Crum, T., R. Alberty, and D. Burgess, 1993: Recording, archiving and using WSR-88D data. <br /> <br />Bull. Amer. Meteor. Sac" 74, 645-653. <br /> <br />Fulton, R., J. Breidenbach, D.-J. Seo, D. Miller, and T. O'Bannon, 1998. The WSR-88D rainfall <br /> <br />algorithm. Weather and Forecasting, in press, June issue. <br /> <br />26 <br />