Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 3 - <br /> <br />o Recent letter from Colorado's Congressional delegation will assist with continued support <br />for the project. Meetings with D.C. staffers and elected officials are designed to assist with <br />further project support as well funding in the President's budget. <br />. General Project Funding - Reallocation and water supply are low priorities to the Corps. The <br />U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has traditionally been the lead role for water supply. <br />o FCSA - There is a question if and how the Feasibility Cost Share Agreement should be <br />amended. WRDA Section 808 authorizes this project but amendment would allow for <br />other funds from other sources, but will also delay and change the schedule and cost more. <br />o The cost of Recreation and Environmental mitigation will need to be shared by all water <br />users proportional to their allocated share of storage, dependant in part on the <br />Environmental Restoration (ER) credit that the downstream users will be provided ifER <br />benefits are recognized by the Corps. <br />o For downstream users, Tracy reported that there are opportunities to waive a portion of the <br />capital costs (original federal investment for the dam) and possibly some potential credit <br />for water supply releases that benefit the environment. Corps will have to check on what <br />percentage of the repayment fits into each category. Tom mentioned that he was of the <br />opinion that implementation hard costs for recreation mitigation and environmental <br />mitigation would be shared on an equitable basis by all 16 water users. The CWCB was <br />fully aware of the possibility of the Corps waiving a portion of the capital costs of the <br />federal facility for downstream Water Users who agree to beneficial release patterns from <br />Chatfield. <br />o Environmental releases would constitute only a portion of the water to be strategically <br />released for environmental credit. Water supply releases would not count as credit, but the <br />credit would be calculated as the difference between the two types of releases. <br />. Merging Ecosystem Restoration and Chatfield Reallocation - If the two efforts merge then we <br />would only need to get project approval from the Assistant Secretary one time. <br />. Katie Fendel asked about the percentages for flooding impacts, recreation impacts, environmental <br />impacts and capital costs. Knowing these categories will help us determine cash needs and credits <br />for the proj ect. <br /> <br />FR/EIS Report Update (Tetra Tech) - The original contract with Tetra Tech ended June 30th so a <br />contract modification was needed. There was a seven week project delay due to contracting tasks that had <br />to be taken care of between the Corps and Tetra Tech. <br />. Responding to comments from cooperating agencies, habitat mapping, project management and a <br />general escalation have changed the original scope of work and tasks to be done. <br />. New guidance from the Corps has no have continuing contract clauses, no funds to continue <br />contract to keep by 31 st negotiated contract. <br />. New time period trying to look realistic and optimistic extended to December 31,2007 if funding <br />slips then will work to June 30, 2008 without escalation. <br />. Because of the limited funding, Corps working with Tetra Tech is on the high priority tasks. <br />. Significant time was spent reminding local, state, and federal interests that once contract periods <br />and funding in the accounts is needed to progress in this project. Continually having to ramp up <br />and then shut down the project is problematic for Tetra Tech. (I.E. there were about 12 Tetra Tech <br />employees working on Chatfield that had to shut down for the last two months due to funding <br />issues). <br /> <br />Flood Protection . Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />