Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />-5- <br /> <br /> <br />e Bob McGregor, Greenwood Village- I was wondering if there was a map that shows the locations of the <br />HMR 51 and 55A stonns and those used in this study. <br /> <br />Ed TomHnson, AWA- Yes, it is in the report; but in the HMRs we don't know what stonns were used to <br />detennine PMP in the Cherry Creek area. <br /> <br />Lou Schreiner, BOR- Am I going to have an opportunity to state my findings? <br /> <br />Larry Lang, CWCB- We need to cover the congressional items first and then further discuss this after <br />lunch. By May 16th we will need to have the 1RP comments and the NWS comments. TIlls was our chance to <br />give the draft report to the advisory committee. The Corps have been receptive to this process and now they <br />need a bit of leeway to address the PMF in the future. Our study partners are in contact with their <br />congressional representatives and await an answer from the Advisory Committee to the PMP issue. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Bill Miller, USACE - I want to go on record that in FY98 the Corps ceased all dam safety activities. The <br />Corps assured the state that we would be involved in this study as an observer. Since the legislation came out <br />the Corps cannot respond to comments until the wording is changed in the legislation. The PMP number <br />drives the flood We went to the NWS to find this number. The Corps will have to review the two PMP <br />Studies and decide how to use them. We are going to need to get a lot of help on this issue. - not just the <br />Omaha office - but also from other agencies. There may be more entities that can help us. We will need all <br />kinds of committees and other people to help us in this issue. Since we have stopped operations, we have not <br />decided what our final recommendations will be. We will now need to decide where to go. We need to look at <br />the infiltration rate; the state says one thing and we say another. We need to address the antecedent flood; we <br />have a site-specific antecedent stonn and need to address it as a group how we are going to handle this. We <br />need more latitude in the wording of the legislation that deals with the PMF; 1 am not drafting legislation <br />here, our official people will do that; as districts, we don't draft legislation. We are going to make sure that <br />the two congressmen understand and agree with what is being said in the wording and how the Corps will <br />respond to the issue in the future_ <br /> <br />Larry Lang, CWCB - The Corps funding issue is on the table now before the community. What time frame <br />are we looking at to get this back to the congressman? <br /> <br />Jeanette Alberg, ADard's office - most of the deadlines have passed for appropriation requests for the FY <br />2004; the biggest thing from Allards office would be the local support for this issue. <br /> <br />Bob McGreggor, Greenwood Village - Doesn't the Corps have funding language we can use? <br /> <br />Jeanette Alberg, ADard's office - Changes of wording can be made but not new appropriations can be <br />requested. It is important to note that all 4 representative (2 Representatives / 2 Senators) need to support this <br />issue. The more 'vocal' that local support is on this issue the more likely Congress will be interested to act. <br /> <br />Larry Lang, CWCB - Our question is whether or not this group will allow the Corps to go on with the <br />PMF? Are we at a point where we want the Corps to move ahead and address some of these PMP and PMF <br />issues? <br /> <br />Jack Byers, DWR - The Corps needs leeway to study this, and the Corps will see this as an impact to their <br />other programs_ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Bob McGregor, Greenwood Village -TIlls won't be decided here in a short conversation. It will take some <br />real thought as how this is dealt with. <br /> <br /> <br />Flood Protection? Water Project Planning and Finance? Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection? Conservation Planning <br />