My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD11204
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD11204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:16 AM
Creation date
12/28/2007 3:50:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Jefferson
Arapahoe
Basin
South Platte
Title
Chatfield Reallocation Study: Meeting Minutes 11/01/2007
Date
11/1/2007
Prepared For
Meeting Participants
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Meeting Summary
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Ken: The numbers Parks has is probably the best number, but any we can get are good to have. <br /> <br />4) Corps Position RE: Project mitigation Roles <br /> <br />Tom: Is there any new info on getting closer to a cost estimate, Ken? Anything new that would <br />update that $40M estimate? <br /> <br />Ken: All hinges that elevations are the same. We need to be sure we are all looking at the same <br />water line. EDA W doesn't want to stick out their neck. We don't have a bottom line number yet <br />due to the issues. <br /> <br />Anne: $40M was the facilities. Cash flow needed to be added. <br /> <br />Ken: That's right, we talked about chapter 4, facility relocation plan was what EDA W was <br />doing, but that is not all of chapter 4. There are other elements involved, started to engage TT in <br />some of those questions. But there are other things to be required in an EIS. We will assist with <br />anything we can. I don't believe TT has done much work on those other areas yet. <br /> <br />Tom: Not too sure they had planned to that other work. <br /> <br />Ken: At one time it was...1 was supposed to do Chapter 4. That's why I was confused about the <br />SOW. We are willing to help as we can, but ultimately, TT needs to provide the document, so <br />it's unified, a good product, can withstand the comment period. <br /> <br />Kent: Parks will be providing the cost data for the facilities? <br /> <br />Ken: Weare going to estimate to some extent, since they have to be built to flood. There are <br />some certain construction standards that are not common to us. <br /> <br />Rick: You have other facilities that flood. <br /> <br />Ken: Not commonly. Not building knowing they would be flooded? Cherry Creek? Corps <br />built those, we took over. Hard to draw cost estimates, too long ago. <br /> <br />Kent: The dock facilities in Chatfield built to be able to flood. <br /> <br />Bill: New building at Cherry Creek had to be bomb proof, and nothing to float away, higher <br />standards than what Corps built. <br /> <br />Ken: Slightly higher standards now. <br /> <br />Anne: I experienced the same sort of thing a couple of years ago, working on bird lists, but I'm a <br />volunteer, wouldn't do the work, but pointed out where the info was. <br /> <br />Rick: So the EDA W report is not at the public point yet. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.