Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 1, paragraph 4: <br /> <br />The first sentence of this paragraph causes some confusion since it does not make clear <br />that the cited increases were <br />attributable to orographic <br />effects. It appears to say that <br />the increases resulted in non- <br />orographic levels larger by <br />the cited percentages, The <br />response to question 3 of <br />NWSD1999 deals with this <br />matter. <br /> <br />The lOO-year, non-orographic precipitation analysis was sent to Mr, Lang on or about <br />July 20,2001, as part the Freedom of Information Act request. <br /> <br />Our answer to Question 2 in NWSR2001 deals with the matter of wind direction in a <br />hypothetical PMP storm and should be reviewed. In addition, routine examination of the <br />range of possible wind directions for a PMP storm (reference Figure 3.3 on page 67 of <br />HMR 55A) shows that some inflow directions are not dov\1llslope at aU, but are upslope, <br /> <br />The answers to Questions 6 and 8 in NWSR200l explain why the within storm depth- <br />area-duration relationships from HMR 52 are relevant and justified for use in NWS1995, <br /> <br />Page 2, paragraph 2: <br /> <br />In the response to Question 35 ofNWSR2001, the NWS recognized "that the <br />recommendations of HYDRO 45 supersede those of The Antecedent Study", - <br /> <br />With respect to the Corps of Engineers decision to apply the antecedent precipitation as a <br />one-day rainfall event; it was found that the number of days with precipitation in the <br />15 day period before a central event varied from 0 to more than 5. See Table 2 of the <br />antecedent study for details, Of the 279 cases looked at, there were 54 instances where all <br />the antecedent precipitation occurred on one day, <br /> <br />5 <br />