FLOOD11185 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and least cost alternative/so Appendix A Water Supply Demand Analysis deals with the metro area and sub basins and does not appear to have the necessary level of detail to provide information for evaluation of the entities requesting storage. The necessary information will have to be added before the "Need" section will be adequate. We will likely need to have a section in the EIS that is entitled "Need". Currently it is assumed that the reader understands the need by reading the "demand" portion of Chapter 1, but need is not specifically spelled out. (2) General Points. If pursuing ER, it is not necessary that reallocated space be dedicated specifically to that purpose (water users would not be in favor of giving any water up from M&I use). However, tradeoff and opportunity costs for downstream users would need to be demonstrated to show costs for ER. . . otherwise, ER would only be considered incidental. If starting an ER study later, presumably M&I would be the existing condition, so only a look at incremental changes would be needed. Once an EIS is completed for the current study, it is expected that a subsequent study to add ER as an allocated purpose would require only an Environmental Assessment (EA). ER projects are expected to not require mitigation. It was pointed out that the downstream group has spent a considerable amount of money on modeling for ER benefits. (3) Cumulative Impacts. No significant policy issues regarding cumulative impacts. We should ensure that our cumulative impacts assumptions and analysis have considered the assumptions and analyses in other efforts ongoing or projected. There are several water supply activities in the Denver front-range area that are completing EIS's. Chandler Peter is the Corps of Engineers' point of contact at the Cheyenne regulatory office. The question came up regarding the "Denver Water Drawdown" project, and whether it should be included in this EIS. The Denver Water Drawdown activity, if it occurs, would take place within the Chatfield Reservoir and would require coverage under NEP A in and of itself. The reallocation EIS will not look at the potential drawdown action as part of the Reallocation Project, but will consider the potential action of the Denver Water Drawdown activity as reasonable and foreseeable in the cumulative effects section. The two actions are independent of each other and are not substantially related. Neither action triggers the other and either action can and will proceed without the other. Neither depends on the totality of both for justification. 7