Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />I <br />· Joint Memorandum, CECG/AASA (CE), 31 March 1995, Subject: Technical <br />Review Process. I. <br />· Memorandum, CECW-A, 14 April 1995, Subject: Implementation of New <br />Technical and Policy Review Procedures. <br />· Report on the Task Force on Technical Review, December 1994, Subject: Rushing <br />Report. <br />· EC 1165-2-203, 15 October 1996, Subject: T~chnical and Policy Compliance <br />Review. <br />· Memorandum, CECW-EP/CEMP-EC, 18 Ju11997, Subject: Accountability and <br />Responsibility for Technical Products. <br />· Memorandum, CECW-EP, 9 June 1998, Major Subordinate Commands Quality <br />Assurance Responsibilities. <br />· OM 10-1-2, 15 May 2000, Organization and Function, U. S. Army Corps of <br />Engineers, Omaha District. <br /> <br />4. GENERAL <br /> <br />Chatfield, Cherry Creek and Bear Creek Reservoirs are located at the edge of the <br />Rocky Mountain Front Range near Denver, Colorado. The Chatfield project is located in <br />Douglas and Jefferson counties, about two miles south of Denver on the South Platte' <br />River. The Bear Creek project is located in JetIerson County, about three miles <br />southwest of Denver and eight miles upstream from the confluence of Bear Creek and the <br />South Platte River. The Cherry Creek project is located in Arapahoe County, about ten <br />miles southeast of Denver and twelve miles upstream from the confluence of Cherry <br />Creek and the South Platte River. All three dams were built in response to flooding in the <br />Denver area, with the most recent wide-spread flood occurring in 1965. <br /> <br />The Feasibility Study is tasked with determining the potential for reallocation of <br />storage from flood control to water supply, specifically in Chatfield reservoir. The <br />Cherry Creek and Bear Creek projects are not being studied at this time, however; they <br />may be examined, under this authority, for reallocation at a later date when economic <br />conditions warrant. The study will assure that all impacts are identified and quantified in <br />order to develop the water storage contract costs if it is determined that the reallocation is <br />in the best interests of all parties. <br /> <br />Key products of this study will include the Feasibility Report, the NEP A <br />Documentation and the Revised Water Control Manuals. Since the original Project Study <br />Plan was developed in 1999, four additional supporting studies have been added to the <br />Feasibility Study and comprise the supporting documents. They include the Antecedent <br />Flood Study, the Rare Plant Survey, the Recreation Study and the Ecosystem Restoration <br />Benefits Study. The details ofthese studies are described in the main portion of this <br />Project Management Plan. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />