Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Two columns, "Maximum Precipitation" and "Remarks," were used to cryptically describe <br />the heaviest rains associated with each listed stOlID. This was very inadequate for <br />providing detailed storms descriptions, but was intended to provide sufficient information <br />to a reader to allow a quick assessment as to the significance of the storm without <br />additional research. For most storms, the "Maximum Precipitation" column listed the <br />largest observed or estimated precipitation amount for each stonn, if known. The <br />"Remarks" column added supplemental reports or a. very brief description of impacts. The <br />storm list ends with two additional columns that indicate ifinformation about the storm is <br />on file at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Flood Hydrology Section at the Denve:r Flmeral <br />Center and ifa Depth-Area-Duration analysis ha~ been pelformed. <br /> <br />The storm list contains very abbreviated infomlation and was only intended to serve as an <br />index. More comprehensive information for each storm is contained in paper files <br />constructed and archived at the Colorado Climate Center on the Colorado State <br />University Foothills Campus. These files contain a wide range of data which vary <br />considerably from one storm to another. Examples include statewide precipitation data, <br />copies of original hand-written observation forms, U.S. weather maps, Storm Data <br />reports, upper-air soundings, isohyetal maps, depth-area-duration analyses, news <br />accounts, and research reports. More attention was given to the approximately 30 most <br />extreme storms. Little information was added to the files of the less significant storms due <br />to time limitations imposed by the project. Streamflow data associated with each storm <br />including total and peak discharge, areas affected and return-period analysis would be a <br />useful addition to each storm file. Unfortunately, time and resources ran out befbre this <br />step was completed. <br /> <br />An informal but very beneficial review process was utilized in assembling the storm list. A <br />preliminary compilation of storms was distributed midway through the project to about 20 <br />precipitation and flooding experts in Colorado. This review helped identifY a number of <br />addition storms and also pointed out some errors in the original list. Then in October <br />1996 near the end of this phase of the project, the Extreme Precipitation Committee, <br />invited by the State Engineer reviewed final storm list results. <br /> <br />Appendix A is a copy of the storm list as it appeared at the end of the project period in <br />October 1996. This list has proven to be fluid as new storms continue to come to our <br />attention. This is especially true for local convective storms which are often small is size, <br />short in duration and often not captured well by traditional data sources. <br /> <br />Evaluations of the validity of storm reports were conducted. Storms on the list that were <br />considered suspect for any ofa variety of reasons were marked as such and subje:cted to <br />special scrutiny. They were not, however, removed from the comprehensive stonn list <br />since the precipitation records most likely appear as published and documented in several <br />places and will likely be encountered in future precipitation studies. A special list of <br />"Suspect" storms was compiled (see Appendix B). These questionable extreme storm <br />reports were discussed by a committee of experts at a special project review mel~ting near <br />the end of this portion of the project in October 1996. The results of this discussion <br /> <br />8 <br />