Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />2907 <br /> <br />II-6 <br /> <br />between the rainfall patterns of these storms leave little doubt as to the <br />transposability of the Montana storm. Plate 11-1 shows the isohyetal pattern' <br />for the June 1964 Montana storm in place, while Plate 11-2 shows the May 1969 <br />Colorado transposed storm pattern. The latter pattern was revised slightly <br />for differences in orientation of the Montana mountains and that of the <br />Colorado mountains to which it was transposed. <br /> <br />In the placement of the transposed pattern, as shown in Plate II-I, <br /> <br /> <br />an attempt was made to locate the rainfall centers on slopes approximately <br /> <br /> <br />those on which they were located in Montana. The degree of success achieved <br /> <br /> <br />in this attempt is indicated by comparison of the slopes roughly estimated as <br /> <br /> <br />the differences between the highest elevation in each storm center and the <br /> <br /> <br />highest elevation 25 miles upwind, i.e., to the east. These differences in <br /> <br /> <br />elevation are compared in Table II-I. The differences agree reasonably well <br /> <br />6/ <br />except for Center D, and the Chatfield report- suggests that the location of <br /> <br /> <br />the storm rainfall center in that part of the project basin is not necessarily <br /> <br /> <br />fixed by the orography. <br /> <br />It should be noted that the June 1964 storm rainfall pattern trans- <br /> <br /> <br />posed was one drawn by the USBR. There are several quasi-official versions <br /> <br /> <br />of the geographic distribution of the rainfall in this storm. The variations <br /> <br /> <br />result from differences in judgment required in the interpolation of rainfall <br /> <br /> <br />amounts between gages. While differences in the various isohyetal patterns <br /> <br /> <br />could result in appreciable errors over certain small areas, differences in <br /> <br /> <br />average rainfall over areas as large as 10,000 square miles would be relatively <br /> <br /> <br />small if the maps were constructed by experienced analysts. <br /> <br />Assessment of the Transposition i <br /> <br /> <br />The only adjustment made by the USBR up to this point in the transpd- <br /> <br /> <br />sition of the Montana storm pattern was,to "bend" the original pattern betwee1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />6/ U,S. Weather Bureau, "Probable Maximum Precipitation over South Platte I <br />- , <br />River, Colorado, and Minnesota River, Minnesota", Hydromet Report 44, I <br />1969, <br /> <br />DAMES e. MOORE <br />