Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 4 - <br /> <br />. Kent Wiley, Audubon Society, asked if the impacts (recreation & environmental) would be <br />added and subtracted from the downstream and upstream aspects of the project to come up with <br />an overall recommendation. <br />. The WRDA Bill is out of the U. S. House of Representative side and over to the U. S. Senate <br />side and we need to get "add-on" language for Chatfield Feasibility Study in the Senate. The <br />last WRDA bill was in 2000 and now there is a 2005 WRDA bill, showing how infrequently <br />this happens. <br />. An audience question - Has the Corps ever completed such a study? Answer by Ralph Rosa - <br />An Example of successful reallocation of storage for instream flows was 5,000 AF at the <br />Hanson Dam in the Pacific Northwest. There the Corps cost share was 100% federal funding. <br />. A water user asked if the federal money be there? The Corps replied that we would be talking <br />about a reduced payment to the federal government by the water users as the form of payment <br />to the proj ect. <br /> <br />Update on the EIS Scopin2 - Tetra Tech Action Item NO.3 by Gene Weglinski <br />. Gene Weglinski, gave an update and stated that they are finalizing the scoping comments to be <br />given to the Corps. The comments will drive the need to look at the alternatives for the EIS. <br />Tetra Tech entered all the comments into an Excel spread sheet and assigned it by topical area <br />and category. They are close to having that finalized. We will use this to address issues during <br />the impact analysis of the EIS. They have worked on the purpose and needs chapter and <br />working on the affected environmental section right now. <br />. In addition to the 20,600 acre-foot pool, for now the defined alternatives will also consider the <br />7 foot (7,700 ac-ft) and 2 foot (2,900 ac-ft) reallocation increments and the "no action" <br />alternative. <br />. The Corps asked if the 2-foot reallocation is still an option? The CWCB responded by stating <br />that there is such a demand for space that it is unlikely that the amount of 2900 ac-ft would help <br />the 16 interested water users needs signifi cantl y. <br />. The CWCB stated that Parks and the CWCB are working on getting a hold of the recreational <br />impacts through the Phase II study funded by State Parks but we need to get a hold of the <br />environmental impacts. <br />. A lesser reallocation amount is the scaled down alternative, but there is a great need for <br />everything the water users in the South Platte River Basin can get. <br />. Rick McLoud lead the discussion about the (inflow/outflow) spreadsheet that the Water Users <br />provided to the Corps for modeling purposes. There are two cases: (1) one has inflow and <br />outflow spread out evenly on a daily basis by month and the other (2) has water goes into the <br />storage space all in one day. The basis for this was many junior water rights that would attempt <br />to capture flood flows for storage and use. Both cases have embedded within them the <br />assumption of the downstream group's strategic releases for meeting instream flow goals. The <br />hydrologic assumption was that only 1/30th can go out a day and releases are made spread out <br />on an equal basis. <br />. It was discussed that there is sort of a maximum benefit with all of the water users involved as <br />there are varying needs and releases will be spread out. <br />. The Corps presented the idea of a recreational/environmental impacts cost curve to help <br />determine what the thresholds for mitigation are. <br />. Rick McLoud requested that the water quality modeling work include the Chatfield Basin <br />Authority findings. <br /> <br />Flood Protection . Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />