My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD07236
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
FLOOD07236
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:00 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:49:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Douglas
Arapahoe
Community
Greenwood Village, Aurora
Stream Name
Cherry Creek
Basin
South Platte
Title
Probable Maximum Precipitation Study for Cherry Creek Reservoir - Related Technical Research Papers
Date
5/20/1990
Prepared For
CWCB
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Project
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
190
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 />.., ~, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Lang, Larry <br /> <br />From: <br />Sent: <br />To: <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Geoffrey Bonnin [Geoffrey,Bonnin@noaa,gov] <br />Monday, February 11, 2002 1 :07 PM <br />Larry Lang <br />Re: NWS Participation in CWCB CHERRY Creek Reservoir PMP Study <br /> <br />Larry. have you had a chance to take a look at this? <br />Geoff <br /> <br />Geoff Bonnin wrote: <br /> <br />> Larry, <br />> <br />> I've gone over the material you sent and I'm a little confused, Your <br />> cover letter and other material you sent imply that NWS is to be a part <br />> of your Project Advisory Committee and/or Technical Review Panel. In <br />> our conversation of December 21. I tried to make clear that in order for <br />> the NWS to preserve its independence we would not be able to be a member <br />> of such a committee or panel but would be happy to conduct an <br />> independent review of the results of your group's work, I was also <br />> expecting you would be sending some sort of draft MOU but perhaps what <br />> you were referring to was the cover letter you sent. <br />> <br />> I've looked over the material and in particular the work breakdown <br />> structure for your project consisting of 13 tasks and I've looked at the <br />> schedule to provide two interim reports and draft and final reports, It <br />> seems to me we could best contribute by reviewing Tasks 1, 2, and 3 (to <br />> be covered by Interim Report #1), and Tasks 5, 6, 7, and 8 (to be <br />> covered in Interim Report #2), It seems to me as though reviewing the <br />> draft final report might be the most effective way of doing this as it <br />> should contain any rework as a result of your group's review of the <br />> interim reports, <br />> <br />> I'm attaching a draft MOU that takes the approach of reviewing the draft <br />> final review, If it's acceptable let me know and I'll pass it by our <br />> legal people, On the other hand. let me know if you'd like changes, <br />> <br />> Geoff Bonnin <br />> <br />> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br />> <br />> <br />> <br /> <br />Name: Cherry Creek MOU,doc <br />Cherry Creek MOU,doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) <br />Encoding: base64 <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.