Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MEETING MINUTES <br /> <br />Cherry Creek Dam Safety Study <br /> <br />Working Group Meeting #3 <br />By the Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />(printed December 15, 1999, and revised January 6,2000) <br /> <br />These minutes summarize the key issues for the December 13, 1999 Cherry Creek technical <br />meeting #3 located at the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. <br /> <br />Attendance <br />Participants in the fields of meteorology, hydrology, and hydraulics as well as local politicians <br />and interested parties attended the meeting, Attendees were: Larry Lang, Tom Browning, <br />Jack Byers, Bill Miller, Bob McGregor, Julia Kertz, Ben Urbollls, Kevin Wegener, Doug <br />Morris, Stephen Spann, John Henz, Ed Tomlinson, and Bob Jarrett, Copies of the attendance <br />list were distributed during the meeting, and additional copies can be obtained from the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board, <br /> <br />Kev Discussions <br />Larry Lang explained the contents of the meeting #2 minutes to the group, Comments were <br />noted and recorded, He provided a recap of the pros and cons of performing a joint federal <br />and non-federal effort to obtain an independent review of the PMP analysis for the Cherry <br />Creek basin, Lang introduced Bill Miller, project manager for the Corps of Engineers, Omaha <br />District, and requested that Bill provide a status update for the group, Bill provided a <br />summary of the Corps' reaction to congressional directives and other concerns, Following are <br />the key issues from the December 13, 1999 technical meeting: <br /> <br />. Lang suggested that the Cherry Creek committee be renamed from "Technical Committee" <br />to "Working Group", The existing committee is working for a resolution to the PMP and <br />dam safety issues for the Cherry Creek Dam and Reservoir. No objections were noted <br />from the group, <br /> <br />CORPS OF ENGINEERS PRESENT A TION <br />. The Corps clearly stated that any results of a peer review or new PMP analysis would be <br />reviewed by the National Weather Service (NWS) , The NWS would have the final word <br />on the acceptance or rejection of such a review. The Corps intends to work with the NWS <br />all the way through this project. <br /> <br />. The Corps intends to follow the congressional directives "to the lett7r of the law", <br /> <br />. The Corps normally sets budgets for projects 2 years in advance of when the dollars are <br />actually going to be used, The Corps has requested $200,000 from the Appropriations <br /> <br />1 <br />