Laserfiche WebLink
<br />· Discussions took place regarding the No Action alternative and impacts associated with that <br />alternative. The No Action alternative has no negative environmental impacts to the Chatfield <br />Reservoir site, but would clearly have negative environmental impacts elsewhere assuming that <br />other projects would have to be implemented in the event that the Chatfield reallocation did not <br />happen. Tetra Tech will address impacts in an appropriate manner and will make use of reliable <br />information available for the study purposes. <br />· A discussion also occurred regarding the use of Denver Botanic Gardens (DBG) for mitigation of <br />onsite impacts. TetraTech may need some additional mapping of relevant offsite locations <br />including DBG and other locations offered by Douglas County to evaluate their applicability and <br />value for this purpose. <br />· Meeting(s) will occur with the USFWS (Pete Plage) to seek input regarding impacts and <br />mitigation options as needed for study purposes. <br />· The habitat mapping information is not ready for release at this time, but will be included in a <br />future release for cooperating agency review. <br />· A group of water users, lead by Rick McLoud and Katie Fendel, will assist in re-writing Chapter <br />2 of the FR/EIS based on new assumptions related to the no-action alternative. The latest (current) <br />version of Chapter 2 will be sent to CWCB for distribution to the water users and study team <br />members. A revised Chapter 2 will be provided to TetraTech by the next progress meeting. <br />· The analysis of impacts associated with Penley and the gravel ponds will use readily available <br />information, and it is not anticipated that any additional field work will be needed. <br />· TetraTech indicated that the environmental impacts and mitigation analyses as well as the FR/EIS <br />work requires an iterative process, and all aspects and study needs can't possibly be known at the <br />beginning of the project. Tetra Tech and the Corps will funnel questions/data needs through the <br />CWCB for distribution to the water users and study team. Several lists of questions/needs are <br />anticipated in the future, and water users will respond in a timely manner when information is <br />requested. <br />· The revised reservoir modeling results from the Corps will require a contract modification so that <br />Tetra Tech can modify work they have already done. The Corps is working with Tetra Tech to <br />complete and approve the necessary contract documents. <br />· Summaries of each chapter of the FR/EIS were provided: <br />o Chapter 1 (purpose and need): 90% complete <br />o Chapter 2 (alternatives): to be re-written based on new assumptions and comments rcvd <br />o Chapter 3 (affected environment): 90% complete <br />o Chapter 4 (environmental impacts): In progress; it is the next chapter to be released for <br />cooperating agency review <br />o Chapter 5 (selected plan): to be completed at a later time <br />o Chapter 6 (public involvement): 95% complete <br />o Chapter 7 (conclusions and recommendations): to be completed at a later time <br />o Appendices: are in various states of completion at this time <br /> <br />South Platte Water Related Activities Program (SPWRAP) Update (led by Katie Fendel, Tracy Bouvette <br />and Rick McLoud) <br />· Several water users (Aurora, Centennial WSD, Castle Pines, Castle Pines North, Roxborough and <br />CCWCD) have already joined SPWRAP to facilitate the Chatfield EIS process and streamline the <br />requirements for downstream depletions related to the three state agreement <br />· At least two water users (Western Mutual and City of Brighton) are requesting guidance from <br />Tetra Tech and the Corps regarding potential ramifications to the Chatfield EIS in the event that <br />those entities delay joining SPWRAP. Tetra Tech has a meeting scheduled with USFWS <br /> <br />2 <br />