Overview
|
On June 22nd, 2026, broad northwesterly flow was in place over the region, over top of moist southeasterly flow at the surface. These conditions would provide an environment supportive of supercells capable of all hazards. By mid afternoon, a storm developed across central El Paso County and quickly intensified into a supercell as it tracked to the southeast. This storm would become a long lived supercell, developing in El Paso County and finally dissipating in far eastern Las Animas County. Along its lifespan, the storm would produce two tornadoes near Fowler, Colorado, along with large hail and severe wind gusts. |
![]() Image of Tornado #1 as it spun across open farm land. Photo By: Quincy Vagell |
Tornadoes:
|
Tornado - Fowler Tornado #1
Track Map
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Tornado - Fowler Tornado #2
Track Map
|
||||||||||||||||
The Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale classifies tornadoes into the following categories:
| EF0 Weak 65-85 mph |
EF1 Moderate 86-110 mph |
EF2 Significant 111-135 mph |
EF3 Severe 136-165 mph |
EF4 Extreme 166-200 mph |
EF5 Catastrophic 200+ mph |
![]() |
|||||
Photos & Video
Header
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| Image of Tornado #1 as it spun across open farm land. Photo By: Quincy Vagell | Image of Tornado #1 as it spun across open farm land. Photo By: Quincy Vagell | Image of Tornado #2 as it spun across open farm land. Photo By: Chaser Hunter | Image of the parent supercell starting to weaken in Las Animas County. Photo By: Quincy Vagell |
![]() |
![]() |
||
| Measured 1.5 inch hail from the parent supercell within El Paso County. Photo By: Matt Minnillo | Image of the parent supercell early in its lifespan in El Paso, County. Photo By: Matt Minnillo |
Radar
Header
![]() |
![]() |
||
| Radar data for Fowler Tornado #1. Image of Reflectivity and Velocity from KFTG. | Radar data for Fowler Tornado #2. Image of Reflectivity and Velocity from KPUX. |
Storm Reports
Below is a map of storm reports from the parent supercell. The first hail reports came from Fountain, Colorado and as the storm track to the southeast, it continue to produce large hail and severe wind gusts. Around Fowler, Colorado is when the storm produced the two tornadoes.
![]() |
Environment
Synoptic and Surface Conditions:![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| Figure 1: 500mb pattern at 5 PM MDT June 22nd. Broad northwesterly flow over the region. | Figure 2: 700mb pattern at 5 PM MDT June 22nd. Moist 700mb flow, with a weak embedded shortwave, over the region. | Figure 3: Surface pattern at 4 PM MDT June 22nd. Moist east to southeasterly surface winds in place across the plains. |
Near-storm Environment Conditions:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| Figure 4: Effective Bulk Shear at 5 PM MDT June 22nd. With northwesterly flow aloft and southeasterly flow at the surface, shear was elevated across the plains, with 50-60 knots of effective shear. Highly supportive of organized storms and supercells. | Figure 5: Mixed-Layer (ML) CAPE at 5 PM MDT June 22nd. With a moist environment in place, instability built across the area, with ML CAPE of 2000 J/kg noising into the plains, supportive of strong convection. | Figure 6: 0-1km Storm Relative Helicity (SRH) at 5 PM MDT June 22nd. Despite two tornadoes, helicity was low across the region, The lower values may have limited the overall tornado threat however. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| Figure 7: Significant Tornado Parameter (STP) at 5 PM MDT June 22nd. STP of around 1 was noising into the plains, indicating an elevated threat for tornadoes. | Figure 8: Supercell Composite Parameter (SCP) at 5 PM MDT June 22nd. The SCP was around 10-12 across the plains, showing an environment supportive or rotating thunderstorms. | Figure 9: LCL Height at 5 PM MDT June 22nd. Despite moist southeasterly flow, large temperature and dewpoint spreads kept LCLs (thunderstorm bases) high. This may have been a contributor to the low 0-1km SRH. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
| Figure 7: Downdraft CAPE (DCAPE) at 5 PM MDT June 22nd. DCAPE was high across the plains, this could support strong outflows from thunderstorms, especially with high based thunderstorms. | Figure 8: RAP Model Sounding Reanalysis at 4 PM MDT (To avoid potential convective contamination, 5 PM MDT was avoided). The sounding is supportive of large instability and strong shear, as well as high cloud bases and large amounts of DCAPE. While the hodograph shows good low level curvature, how much of this was actually realized by the storm given high bases? Likely not much. |
![]() |
Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged! Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site. |
![]() |