Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br /> <br />- 7- <br /> <br /> <br />Jack Byers, SEO - We can keep a chain on them until the point where we have a public input process to see <br />how the Corps will move fOlward. We want to influence this before the alternatives are put into place. The <br />assessment should be a reconnaissance feasibility assessment. Is this study was complete enough to be used to <br />'move forward' in addressing issues? How much leeway can the COE be given to make decisions? In <br />addition, expressing concern on this report is not in the best interest of all affected parties. We need to move <br />forward and make progress on this issue. Jack Byers would like the State to be more active in the PMPIPMF <br />process. We as a group want to be part ofthe process as it goes along and not wait until the Corps is finished <br />and then we have to stop the process again. <br /> <br />Rod Kuharich, CWCB - We need to work together to get some language on the table to allow the Corps to <br />get on with this project. <br /> <br />Lunch break <br /> <br />Gary Lewis, Parsons Engineering - Note: most of his comments were made in a memo distributed to all <br />interested parties at the meeting. Important points: <br />I) The work penonned met and in his opinion exceeded the scope as origillally outlined for the study. <br />2) That the concept of a more detailed regional analysis should supercede any general analysis as it is <br />applied to local basins. <br />3) Any significant issues regarding more technical details, he must defer to LouINolan for their input. <br />4) Question the issue of 'standardization' - is Colorado non-standard and what about the remainder of <br />the state. <br /> <br />Larry Lang, CWCB - Not sure how Bob Jarretts' Paleo-flood study fits in the context of this study but we <br />will include it in the report. Larry, went on to assure all present that technical review comments will be <br />included in the report and that a true final draft is to be sent to the technical committee. Lang ~ Noted that the <br />state has always been open to 'site-specific' PMP and exceptions can and will be made. <br /> <br />Lou Schreiner, BOR - Noted that there were some typos and some questions: <br />When performing PMP on the plains for proj ects, there were questions then about what storms should be <br />moved into what basins. Noted that there were lots of different opinions among meteorologists and that some <br />PMP had 30% differences from site-specific studies. He also noted that there was some discussion in the past <br />on how to get stonn numbers lowered in some basins (with no overwhelming reason). <br /> <br />Gary Lewis, Parsons Engineering - Does latitude exist in the Hydro Meteorological Reports today for <br />adjustments? <br /> <br />Lou Schreiner, BOR - No. HMR 55A methods was the primary technique utilized by the PMP with some <br />adjustment methodologies adopted by HMR 52. (This appeared to be contradictory to some comments in the <br />report). Therefore, someone needs to examine what techniques are done in HMR 55A. Further, he noted if <br />HMR 52 is applied, it would not have resulted in a significant adjustment. After some hurried debate, some of <br />which involved discussion about Plum Creek (1965 event): Byers steps in and asks participants to 'expedite' <br />proceedings for those who are time constrained. <br /> <br />Ed Tomlinson, A W A - Suggests that the results are not infallible thus, there is a 55A but, maybe there <br />should be a 55B. <br /> <br />Ed Tomlinson, A W A - "we will be receptive to comments/changes made by others" <br />AWA would have liked to reproduce the results ofHMR 55A but, the NWS is 'not chartered to help them <br />understand 55A'. <br /> <br />Flood Protection? Water Project Planning and Finance? Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection? Conservation Planning <br />