Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-7 - <br /> <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 of the 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 performed met and in his opinion exceeded the scope as originally 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 Lou/Nolan 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' Paleoflood 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 Schreiuer, BOR - Noted that there were some typos and some questions: <br />When performing PMP on the plains for projects, 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 were some discussion in the past <br />on how to get storm numbers lowered in some basins (with no overwhelnting 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 55E. <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 />Lou Schreiner, BOR- Refers to paragraph 7 in the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) definition of <br />PMP (content of that reference not captured) <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />