Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Executive Summarv <br /> <br />The Applied Weather Associates report provides no information that would lead the National <br />Weather Service (NWS) to modify the conclusions of its 1995 study. In preparing the 1995 <br />estimates, the NWS followed guidelines contained in Hydrometeorological Reports 52 and 55A, <br />then adjusted the results to account for the specific orography ofthe Cherry Creek Basin, The <br />1995 NWS study was independently reviewed in February 1999, The NWS used an approach <br />generally accepted by the major federal dam building agencies for several decades. The approach <br />has been reviewed and accepted by the National Science Foundation, Applied Weather <br />Associates concludes that NWS followed the guidelines and they validated the NWS results. <br /> <br />NWS is concerned that its responses to questions raised at the Cherry Creek Dam Safety Study <br />Technical Meeting of July 21,1999, do not appear to have been considered, nor has information <br />the NWS supplied in July 2001, NWS is also concerned that Task 3 remains incomplete, <br /> <br />The report raises very few new issues, The majority of the issues have been raised and <br />responded to in previous reports, The new items we could identify are: <br /> <br />I. Statement that "the state-of-the-science in meteorology does not support a theoretical <br />evaluation of storm efficiency" - with which we concur, <br />2, Discussion of potential storm dynamics leading to a conclusion that "no change in <br />storm efficiency is accepted" - with which we concur. <br />3. Discussions that appear directed at proposing alternate spatial patterns for the PMP <br />event - with which we disagree, <br />4. Discussions suggesting alternate temporal distributions for the PMP do not appear to <br />take into account the variability in temporal distribution suggested in 1995 NWS study, <br /> <br />2 <br />