FLOOD11199 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation CWCB - COE, Omaha District Meeting Summary (11-21-06 in Omaha, NE) Attendees: CWCB: Rod Kuharich, Dan McAuliffe, Tom Browning Corps: Ralph Roza, David Brandon, Marty Timmerwilke Discussion Items: · Discussions began at approximately 10:45 am regarding process for original Storage Reallocation EIS work in addition to newer Ecosystem Restoration efforts by local interests. Rod stated that CWCB is wholly in favor of keeping EIS and ER on separate tracks so as not to delay the schedule for storage space contracts. Corps explained it would be beneficial to continue to explore federal and non-federal interest in ER work, and that it would not have to impact the current EIS schedule. CWCB would have significant control over the decision regarding future direction of the project, but it makes sense for now to fully support the ER work and let in continue on its own track, with nominal funding from the EIS budget as needed. · Corps in-house work (meetings, phone calls, pre-scoping, etc.) has been billed to the Chatfield Reallocation study to the tune of $25K or so. Rod was ok with that small amount. · Corps explained funding options for continued work on Chatfield Reallocation. So much depends on the level of federal funding from the appropriations bill (could likely be anywhere from $0 to $400,000) and on the FY08 President's Budget. We should know much more by early March 2007. · If necessary, the best way for CWCB to add non-federal funds to the project is by reducing the value of in-kind services claimed within the 50/50 match balance. Reducing in-kind credit may be relatively painless and quick, and may only take a couple of weeks to complete, needing only to negotiate and revise the Project Management Plan (PMP). Corps cautioned CWCB to not give up crediting for all of the in-kind credit at one time, rather incrementally as, and if needed. CWCB would need to provide a letter to Corps stating agreement for, and requesting a lesser credit for In-Kind Services. · Other options to exceed the 50/50 balance are "advanced funds" and "contributed funds." The "advance funds" option would obligate the federal government to repay and as such is not likely to be approved. The other alternative to self-funding is the "contributed funds" approach where non-federal sponsor would provide more than its share of the 50% match. Excess sponsor contributed funds are not credited to the sponsor's cost share. It appears that this alternative would be used as a last resort and only if needed. Either of these last 2 alternatives would need to be approved by Congressional Committee and therefore would require 3 to 6 months lead time. · David distributed copies of a draft projected cash expenditure chart that indicates a matrix of funding scenarios for the project (3 levels of federal appropriations, with and without in-kind credit, with and without ecosystem restoration). The matrix is a lot to digest, but will be greatly reduced once we know the federal appropriations amount. Corps estimated that $617,000 is needed to accomplish tasks for FY 2007. Another $233,000 would be needed in FY 2008 to fully finish the reallocation Feasibility Report/EIS study. The FY 2007 amount does not take into account a minor amount of unencumbered funds carried over from FY 2006 and it would be reduced by the recent addition of the water users $114,000 cash contri bution. · Ralph suggested that an "interim report" could be issued for the storage reallocation piece of the project that would allow storage space contracts to take place. In addition, the project authority and funding would remain active for all future efforts such as ecosystem restoration below Chatfield as well as storage reallocation at Bear Creek reservoir. This seemed to be a wise and acceptable approach to everyone. · Ralph suggested that a Vertical Team Meeting could take place in lieu of an Issues Resolution Conference (IRC) due to the fact that it is easier to organize, requires less notice, does not require the same level of copying/distribution of meeting materials, and is generally more efficient. Additional upside is that most or all of the goals of an IRC can be met this way. All agreed that this was an acceptable approach. · Discussion took place regarding continuity of funding for the EIS in the immediate future. Tom is concerned about another lapse in the Tetra Tech work due to break in the funding stream. CWCB is able to provide funds from its Chatfield Downstream Channel Improvement Project account (previously authorized in the CWCB construction fund), and water users will be asked to provide an additional $200,000 (total from 16 users) in early 2007. CWCB can also proceed with in-kind reduction in the near 1