Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PARSONS <br /> <br />Memorandum To Larry Lang <br />January 18, 2002 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />suggested. For example, one controversy is clearly whether the orographic <br />and wind effects were adequately incorporated in the study. A W A has <br />already produced a few "zingers" that suggest to me that prudence would <br />prescribe assumptions other than those used by NWS. For example, the <br />"missing storm" analysis is insightful, scientifically sound, and credible. <br />Even though I'm just a hydrologist, I've "bought" a few other meteorological <br />evidences presented by A W A as well, although John Riedel stated (2/24/99 <br />letter) that he "would not expect hydrologists to understand <br />[hydrometeorologic data and analyses]." At some point, A W A needs to say <br />whether the contested PMP study is valid or not, and why. <br /> <br />4. Is the information organized, conclusive and appropriate for this study? <br /> <br />. This is probably the greatest weakness of the report in its present form, but I <br />don't think A W A intended this to be their final report, even for those tasks <br />that are completed. The report organization lacks context and transitions, it is <br />not completely conclusive, and needs work to qualify as the "appropriate" <br />response that CWCB can deliver to NWS and the Corps. As I read it, I <br />couldn't tell how the information relates to the thesis question (which I think <br />is "Should CWCB accept the NWS PMP findings?"). It is also difficult to <br />assess which issue or area of controversy each discussion is addressing, and I <br />haven't heard A W A say emphatically that the PMP values are right or wrong, <br />or that some other assumption or some different analysis should have been <br />used and would have changed things dramatically. As noted in Item 3 above, <br />I haven't seen any "declarations" regarding the thesis question, other than the <br />fairly strong statement in the 8/19/97 letter and the hypotheses, stated as <br />conclusions, listed in Task 1. <br /> <br />5. Are there any general editorial comments you would like to make? <br /> <br />. The material evidently wasn't proofed before distribution. When the various <br />sections are pieced into a report, a spelling and grannnar check will likely be <br />done and will catch most of the things I found. A technical editor could also <br />remedy some style and syntax problems. There are a number of grannnatical <br />"glitches" including a few incomplete sentences (such as last sentence of first <br />paragraph on page 27), but it was always easy to tell what the author was <br />attempting to say. <br /> <br />. It may not fulfill all the requirements of the scope, but I think the report <br />should be formatted somewhat like the 8/19/97 letter. If the thesis question is <br />whether CWCB should accept the NWS PMP study at face value, a list of <br />issues, like those in the 1997 letter, could be listed and evidences could be <br />presented one-by-one to affirm or refute the NWS assumptions and analyses. <br />The list of conclusions I found in Task I should be identified instead as <br /> <br />022/ <br />