FLOOD07236 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PARSONS Memorandum To Larry Lang January 18, 2002 Page 3 described, Work on this task has been the discussion of the past several meetings, and progress appears to have reached at least the 80 percent level. It would be helpful for the final report to give the reader an indication of the degree of uncertainty in the NWS PMP values for each of the parameters described (a good example of what I mean here is provided at the end of the section on Saturated Storm Atmosphere), Alternatively, the report should identify which parameters were determined to have the greatest potential impact on the NWS PMP depth and distribution, and it should bracket NWS's PMP within the uncertainty range, . Task 9: This appears to "almost" meet the requirements for this task. What's missing is a wrap-up conclusion statement, I think A W A's conclusion is that the' contacts didn't establish a standard method, suggesting that the individual PMP analyst apparently has discretion, Because no precedent was found, the report should describe what antecedent and reservoir conditions were used by NWS and whether the site's physical setting and storm type dictate that other assumptions should have been made, Maybe this topic should be moved to Task 3, where an assessment of the sensitivity of the antecedent and storage parameters could be incorporated with the other parameters already listed there, . Task 11: This task is evidently 100 percent complete, A W A used the software to confirm the NWS computations, and reported that the differences are insignificant. Their "report" regarding this is sufficiently thorough and complete. 2, Are there any technical shortcomings for the task requirement and the A WA findings? . Though not considered shortcomings, suggestions for additional analysis or expanded reporting are mentioned above with each task. The contractors appear to be responding well to the technical scope. I think the part of Question 2 regarding findings is premature, especially if it relates to whether the NWS PMP study should be accepted, A W A has raised several valid concerns and some conclusions are implied, but I don't think they've presented any concrete findings yet - the jury is still out. ], Is there information and/or analysis presented that needs to be enhanced or expended on? . This goes without saying as "yes," I think the best way to approach this would be to list what appear to be the most controversial aspects of the NWS PMP study, then describe what the independent, more-detailed analysis by A W A reveals regarding each and what revisions or uncertainties are 022/