Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. Summary of Some Action Items or Items Needing Further Discussion (mayor may not <br />be directly from the meeting) <br /> <br />A. The Omaha District will run the 808 language by Office of Counsel regarding <br />"fishery habitat protection and enhancement" as being sufficient authority for <br />pursuing ER. <br /> <br />B. The need as currently defined in the Reallocation Report/ Environmental Impact <br />Statement (RR/EIS) may not be adequate. Further limited coordination by the Project <br />Delivery Team (PDT) with Division staff would be needed to ensure that the "Needs" <br />statement is sufficient. <br /> <br />C. There will be an ongoing need to discuss level of detail in the analysis, as findings <br />dictate areas needing less or perhaps more rigorous examination. <br /> <br />D. The Corps will be responsible for design and implementation of EN V mitigation -can <br />accept cash as it is required over the design and implementation phases - Omaha <br />District will seek concurrence from District Council regarding this point. <br /> <br />E. As Colorado State Parks is responsible for the recreation facilities, it may be <br />allowable for them to perform the design and construction of recreational mitigation - <br />Need further discussion with Division and HQ. Does the Corps need to be involved, <br />or can CWCB or other locally responsible party collect and pay for recreational <br />mitigation? <br /> <br />F. Need to discuss with Div. and HQ - If the group wanted one contract, and CWCB <br />didn't want to be the broker of the storage space, could a foundation be set up to be <br />responsible for doing the brokering, or could the Greenway Foundation be utilized? <br /> <br />G. Further clarification needed for the group - There was some discussion on whether <br />there could be a waivature of mitigation costs coming from the federal side, or a <br />proration of the price break for agriculture on the notion that eventually agriculture <br />would sell out to M&I. <br /> <br />H. Will it be required that the contract(s) signed by water users include an operational <br />plan so that transfers of storage to another use would not create changes not covered <br />under our mitigation planning? Also, would we require there to be a clause in the <br />contract that states if storage is changing hands, change in timing of withdraw may <br />not occur? <br /> <br />I. We need to determine as soon as possible whether all reallocation may be designated <br />as M&I and how agricultural use will be handled. <br /> <br />8 <br />