Laserfiche WebLink
<br />File: PMPtopics799summary2.doc <br /> <br />July 22, 1999 <br /> <br />Topics for Technical Meeting Concerning the <br />Site Specific Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) <br />for the Cherry Creek Drainage in Colorado <br /> <br />1. Original analysis of 1935 storm (Cherrv Creek & Hale) cannot be easily challenged with <br />the available data, but there are concerns about the depth and areas associated with that <br />storm and the impact they have on later Colorado PMP assumptions. (Doesken) <br /> <br />The group did not reach consensus. The NWS will examine a way to verity this <br />assumption. <br /> <br />2. Primary overall concern with this PMP is the "storm area" and, to a lesser extent the <br />storm centering in light of the southeasterly surface winds needed to advect the quantity of <br />moisture associated with such an extreme storm. (Doesken) <br /> <br />The group did not reach consensus. The NWS will examme a way to verity this <br />assumption. <br /> <br />3. Have no problem with the depth of rainfall associated with the PMP storm, but troubled <br />by the areas assumed - and these have HUGE impacts on the subsequent results. Appreciate <br />a conservative approach, but this seems excessively conservative especially when compared to <br />any known storm anywhere along the Rocky Mountain front from northern New Mexico to <br />Montana. Physically, how could such large areas be affected, with a north-south orientation, <br />on the downwind (under most likely extreme precipitation scenarios) side of a significant <br />topographic barrier. (Doesken) <br /> <br />The group did not reach consensus. The NWS will examine a way to verity this <br />assumption. <br /> <br />4. The March 5, 1999, "peer" review response submitted by the United States Army Corps of <br />Engineers is simply another in-house review prepared by the National Weather Service, is not <br />an independent analysis, and does not address the full range of issues that are typically <br />addressed in a proper independent peer review. (Colorado Senate Joint Res~lution 99-023) <br /> <br />The group consensus was that the review performed in March 1999 was a !lwller ami' <br />independent review. <br /> <br />5. Since the western limit for the application of HMR 52 has varied from publication to <br />publication, what is the current western limit and how was it derived? (Tomlinson) <br /> <br />The group did not reach consensus. The NWS will examine a way to verity this <br />assumption. <br />6. HMR 52 was not developed using storms considered transpositionable to the Cherry <br /> <br />I Deleted as per request [wm Dr. Edward Tomlinson during public meeting held on July 22, <br />1999. <br /> <br />Topics and summary of21 July 1999 Technical Meeting <br />