My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD11206
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD11206
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:17 AM
Creation date
12/28/2007 3:51:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Jefferson
Arapahoe
Basin
South Platte
Title
Chatfield Reallocation Study: Meeting Minutes 11/06/2007
Date
11/6/2007
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.
/
23
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 />Dave: Other piece was reconciliation of the mapping issue. <br /> <br />Tom: Let me explain, there are two sets of datum at Chatfield, difference is between 3 <br />and 4 feet, because of that difference, the topo maps don't match, that was discovered <br />fairly recently, trying to figure out what that does, acres of impact so far, what does it <br />mean to the EIS. Not a minute point, right folks are talking. Talked about it in Omaha. <br />Other than that, not a lot to report. <br /> <br />Sandy: This comes up in other scenarios, need to apply a formula. <br /> <br />Tom: Not asking me for more money. Other happened at that meeting, everyone in <br />SWRAP, Mutual only one needs to do this. <br /> <br />Bob: Proposal for knitting habitat proposals was interesting. <br /> <br />Tom: Other piece was cumulative impacts table. <br /> <br />Rick: I am trying to facilitate a listing of gravel pits north of Denver, would like to send <br />it around and have people add info to it. Denver, Brighton, Westminster, Thornton, some <br />blanks. If you could look at this and make any changes, I'd appreciate it. I have South <br />Adams included. It's confusing, they want both existing and planned. <br /> <br />Sandy: Dave, are you sure TT is not looking at socio-economics? <br /> <br />Tom: In general they are, there were specific questions about impacts to the Park. <br />Anything else on that item? <br /> <br />8) Ecosystem Restoration <br /> <br />Bob: Tracy is contacting downstream users to talk about steps forward for <br />implementation of restoration. <br /> <br />Rick: Is what Tracy did works for Gary? <br /> <br />Bob: I will check. <br /> <br />9) Economic Analysis <br /> <br />Tom: Good news piece. Had a conference call recently, where we are at, the information, <br />thanks Teresa, bottom line right now, Chatfield Reallocation Scenario is the low cost <br />alternative, the next least cost alternative is a combination of Groundwater and Gravel <br />Pits. Table is being revised for some errors, that next least-cost will fall between $170 - <br />$200 million. Don't know exact amount. They will have a more firm number later, this <br />is the news we have been waiting for. What this does is solidify for us that the Chatfield <br />Reallocation is cost effective form the Corps' standpoint. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.