FLOOD11197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o Recreation: EDAWs study impacts have been pulled into Chapter 4 and Tetra Tech will continue updating the section when they get the rest of the results from EDAWfor the 7,700 AF alternative and other revisions). o Cultural Resources: Tetra Tech is waiting on the Corps report and they anticipate receiving that within the next week or two. The study will be incorporated into the report at that time. o Visual impacts: This section will be updated when the contract modification is received. o Socioeconomics: This section will be updated after the flood damage section is updated and additional input is received from EDAWon recreation impacts. . Chapter 5 (Preferred Alternative) This chapter is to be completed after Chapter 4 is completed. It will include a summary of the costs of reallocation and the selected plan. . Chapter 6 (Public Involvement, Review and Consultation) This is essentially complete; only minor comments have been received. The Corp is reviewing and prioritizing cooperating agency comments for Tetra Tech. . Chapter 7 (Conclusions and Recommendations) This chapter will be completed after all other chapters. Economics Analysis . Gene Sturm is finalizing the methodology for the economics analysis for the Chatfield reallocation for the Corps. Chuck Hillerson is doing the analysis. The Corps responsibility includes analyzing the "least cost alternative" which is typically the no action alternative. However, in the case of Chatfield the no action alternative would mean a greater dependence on groundwater for most municipalities. Gene's quick run through of the South Metro Water Study concluded that the development of groundwater would be about three times as expensive as the Chatfield reallocation. This assumption is only looking into the future 50 years instead of the 100 years that the Corps requires and will require further analysis. . If groundwater is ruled out as a viable alternative then the no action alternative is still the least cost alternative. . Rod Kuharich stated that if groundwater is still being considered an alternative then other alternatives should be looked at as well. Another smaller on-stream reservoir cannot be ruled out. . Katie Fendel stated that if acquiring more on-stream water rights is another alternative they would have to be ruled out by her agencies because they are very expensive and not feasible. . Question from Tracy Bouvette: The South Metro Water Study SWSI identifies a demand gap that exists in 2035-how will the EIS address this? Tom Browning feels that at this point the goal is to just eliminate groundwater as a possibility and move on. 4