1 / 27

EPAT Storm Library

Comprehensive List of Storms Issues Many inconsistencies Incorrect maximizations Missing Data Mixing of climatologies Lack of storm rep info Recommendations Update storm list Include PMP type storms only Correct/add maximizations. EPAT Storm Library.

yanni
Download Presentation

EPAT Storm Library

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comprehensive List of Storms • Issues • Many inconsistencies • Incorrect maximizations • Missing Data • Mixing of climatologies • Lack of storm rep info • Recommendations • Update storm list • Include PMP type storms only • Correct/add maximizations EPAT Storm Library

  2. Compare EPAT isohyetal to SPAS isohyetal • SPAS consistently greater in magnitude • Why? • Recommendations • Utilize SPAS analyses in place of EPAT analyses EPAT Storm Comparisons

  3. Fort Collins July 1997

  4. Cherry Creek May 1935

  5. Dove CreekSept 1970

  6. Frijole Creek July 1981

  7. Compare EPAT temporal to SPAS temporal • Generally good agreement • Why? • Recommendations • If updated to EPAT are made, utilize SPAS analyses to take advantage of explicit hourly/sub hourly increments • Consistancy EPAT Storm Comparisons

  8. Fort Collins July 1997

  9. Cherry Creek May 1935

  10. Dove CreekSept 1970

  11. PenroseJune 1921

  12. EPAT Storm Comparisons • Compare EPAT (HMR) ARF to SPAS ARF • Widely varying • Expected because storm specific • Especially in orographic terrain • Inappropriate to apply ARF • Use actual data in all cases • Recommendations • All Storms need full DAD • Do not use regionalized ARF • Individual analysis captures this

  13. Fort CollinsJuly 1997

  14. CheyenneAugust 1985

  15. Plum Creek June 1965

  16. Lake MaloyaMay 1955

  17. EPAT vs Arizona PMP Comparisons • Compare EPAT PMPto AZ PMP • EPAT and AZ PMP run on 4 basins • EPAT higher at Bauer #2 using same controlling storm, but why? • General storm control-should be local • Why Blanding general in EPAT? • Show/compare Blanding Storm Max

  18. Bauer PMP

  19. EPAT vs Arizona PMP Comparisons • AZ PMP higher at Long Hollow • General/Tropical-same storm Sept 1970 • Bluff, UT 2001 controls local • Why not in EPAT library?

  20. Long Hollow PMP

  21. EPAT vs Arizona PMP Comparisons • AZ PMP higher at Red Mesa • General/Tropical-same storm Sept 1970 • Bluff, UT 2001 controls local • Why not in EPAT library?

  22. Red Mesa PMP

  23. EPAT vs Arizona PMP Comparisons • AZ PMP MUCH higher at Rio Grande • General/Tropical-different storms • EPAT-June 1927 • AWA-Sept 1970 and Dec 1966 • Local-different storms • EPAT-Placerville-Aug 2001 • AWA-Bluff, UT 2001 controls local • High level comparison because of location of basin

  24. Rio Grande PMP

  25. Rio Grande PMP

  26. EPAT vs Arizona PMP Comparisons • AWA generally larger • Some EPAT less than precip frequency climo • Enveloping not done in EPAT process • Only 1 storm controls • Recommendations • EPAT does not produce PMP in current form • Enveloping must be part of the process

More Related