FLOOD07236 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , COpy , Busto, Joe From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Nolan Doesken [nolan@almos.coloslale,edu] Tuesday, January 22, 2002 9:54 AM awa@divide,nel larry.lan g@state,co,us; joe ,busto@state,co,us Cherry Creek PMP Review Panel -- my comments Ed, Larry, Joe: I've been away the past week and a half and had planned to submit review comments to you remotely, I could not access my e-mail system remotely, however, due to recent hacker proofing measures our system administrator had made. Sorry for this delay, The notes below are my reactions and comments to Interim Report #1 and related materials and presentations that J have received or heard to date, My comments will be directed towards tasks 1,2,3,9, and 11, Nolan Review comments on Interim Report #1 submitted by Nolan Doesken Task 1, The bulk of the work on task 1 was completed independent of the current state-funded PMP evaluation and represents a summary of the work of Ed Tomlinson completed in 1997, At that time, Ed thoroughly reviewed the NWS Site Specific PMP study for Cherry Creek, This is a good piece of work and should be included here, The brief summary in the Interim Report followed by the detailed background information and 1997 peer review writeup in the appendix seems to be adequate for presenting this important information, However, it should be stated in the write-up for whom this work was initially performed, As it is, a reader could assume ti was performed solely for this project. In reality, I believe it was performed for other paying clients, The potential for a biased view existed when this work was done in 1997 since it was performed for clients who may have had special interests and a desire for a certain outcome, Potential biases aside, this review represented a comprehensive and technically thorough evaluation of a subject that very few in the country are qualified to review in this delail, The basic concerns that the 29 storms used in the original PMP study may not appropriately represent the Front Range is a concern that I share, The assumption of "non-orographic" for the Cherry Creek Basin is an assumption that I would also question, and the uncertainty of the 1 DO-year precip frequency spatial patterns and point values are one that I would raise even moreso than AW A since it was based on very, very little historic data in or near the basin in question, There were two statements in the review that I take issue with, 1) the Cherry Creek SS PMP was 60% greater than the maximized 1935 storm 2) the Cherry Creek SS PMP was 7 times greater than the 1 DO-year storm, Both of these statements are statements of fact but were presented in a manner designed to cast doubt on the NWS results, In reality, it is totally appropriate for the relationship between PMP and the 1 DO-year 1