|
<br />- 2,
<br />
<br />. Mr, Gary Lewis passed around a paper that discusses the relationship of the Probable Maximum Flood (pMF) and the
<br />Probable Maximum Precipitation (pMP),
<br />· The NWS has and will submit comments on Interim Report #1, and the NWS has shown a good attitude about the
<br />project.
<br />
<br />Agenda by Dr, Ed Tomlinson
<br />Dr. Tomlinson discussed the specifics of the presentations to be given, They included:
<br />. An overview of the status of the project, task by task, as well as a detailed discussion on the status of the remaining task,
<br />including the sensitivity analysis,
<br />· Dr. Tomlinson stated that A W A wants to review what they proposed to do and why they think it is the right thing to do
<br />for this project.
<br />. As discussion on the differences / similarities of approach between the A W A and NWS projects would not be done at
<br />this time, as this is a totally independent project. The comparison between the two projects will be included in Interim
<br />Report #2,
<br />. Critical storm identification has been completed,
<br />. Mr, John Henz will present some of the issues that deal with storm orientation, storm centering, multiple center storms,
<br />etc,
<br />· Mr, Doug Trieste will discuss the hydrology and the transposition of the critical storms into the Cherry Creek Drainage
<br />Basin - a sort of preliminary PMF study,
<br />. Dr. Tomlinson outlined the difference between the A W A and NWS PMP studies, The A W A study is based on regional
<br />floods and storm characteristics whereas the NWS is based on nation,wide general large storm events,
<br />
<br />Presentation #1 by Dr, Ed Tomlinson
<br />Dr. Tomlinson discussed some of the administrative items of the study, which included the introduction of the AWA team
<br />members, He also mentioned that Dr. Don Jensen of the Utah Climate Center and Dr, Robert Jarrett of the United States
<br />Geological Survey were unable to attend today's meeting due to other appointments,
<br />At this time, Dr, Tomlinson discussed the status of each project Task. They are as follows:
<br />. Task One: Review the NWS PMP study - completed.
<br />. Task Two: Replicate GRASS and HMR 52 runs - completed.
<br />. Task Three: Sensitivity analysis - some items are completed whlle others will be completed in Interim Report #2.
<br />. Task Four: Interim Report #1; Revised and distributed on April2001- completed.
<br />. Task Five: Storm identification ad analysis - completed.
<br />. Task Six: Comparison of A W A PMP approach to NWS approach - completed,
<br />. Task Seven: Paleo-flood analysis - work in progress.
<br />. Task Eight: Reasonableness and consistency checks - work in progress.
<br />. Task Nine: Antecedent moisture criteria - completed.
<br />. Task Ten: Interim Report #2 - Due May 17th, 2002.
<br />. Final Draft Report: Due June 18th, 2002.
<br />. Task Eleven: Acquire GRASS GIS software - completed.
<br />. Task Twelve: MM5 computer storm modeling - work in progress.
<br />. Task Thirteen: Evaluation of input parameters for HEC-l runoff modeling - complete.
<br />
<br />Mr, Schreiner asked what was wrong with the initial MM5 computer storm models, Dr, Tom\inson replied that the model i,
<br />not producing any rain in the vicinity of the June 16'h, 1965 Plum Creek storm, He went on to say that the model was starte(
<br />on June 14'h and has been constantly running for days due to the fact that the model's operator, Mr, Dan Dansereau, of
<br />GeoClim out of Logan, Utah, has changed the model's spatial resolution to Ikm, which is much smaller than what is usually
<br />prescribed, The rainfall centers for the June 16'h storm were particularly small in size, therefore the resolution needed to be
<br />just as small in order to replicate the storm accurately, This newest run of the model is, in fact, putting rain on the ground in
<br />the proper June 16'h vicinity, but the model has not completed the entire storm event, and therefore, there are no definitive
<br />answers as of this meeting, Dr, Tomlinson added that Mr, Dansereau is using an existing National Center for Atmospheric
<br />Research (NCAR) method to adjust the wind fields so they can be used with the smaller resolution, Also, the initial model
<br />Flood Protection. Wate! Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection
<br />Water Supply Protection. ConsetVation Planning
<br />
|