Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />NWS 11 May 2001 <br /> <br />3. Have no problem with the depth of rainfall associated with the PMP storm, but troubled by <br />the areas assumed - and these have HUGE impacts on the subsequent results. Appreciate a <br />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 verify this <br />assumption. <br /> <br />Answer 3. <br /> <br />The answer to this question is the same as for question number 2. <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 Resolution 99-023) <br /> <br />The group consensus was that the review performed in March 1999 was a 1 independent <br />review. <br /> <br />Answer 4. <br /> <br />No response needed. <br /> <br />1 Deleted as per request from Dr. Edward Tomlinson during public meeting held on July 22,1999. <br /> <br />7 <br />