Laserfiche WebLink
<br />US Armv CorDS of En2ineers <br />The contingent met with the Corps representative at their headquarters. The meeting <br />lasted two hours, eight minutes. Attendees from the Corp included Carol Angier, Civil <br />Works Deputy and head of the Regional Integration Team for the Corps efforts in the <br />NW United States, her assistant Ken Hall of the Civil Works Directorate, John Micik, <br />an attorney with the Civil Works Directorate, who is taking over the project in the wake <br />of the retirement of Steve Cone, who is now consulting with the Institute for Water <br />Resources, and Larry Prather, Assistant Director of Civil Works. Twenty questions <br />were asked and answered, primarily with Mr. Micik. He has spent the past three years <br />working with Mr. Cone, was surprisingly spun-up on the Chatfield Reallocation process, <br />and connected with John Hendrick right away. Seventy percent of Corps recreation <br />projects are in Oklahoma and Texas, and past reallocation projects have typically <br />involved huge bodies of water in rural areas. Chatfield is a different kettle of fish for the <br />Corps. Similarly, CWCB has never acted as a non-Federal sponsor of such a project, and <br />the fifteen local participants in the effort have never been involved in such a cooperative <br />experience before. The session sorted out what is possible under the current statutory <br />authority of the Corps of Engineers, in as much as there is no guidebook for how to get <br />this job done. (i.e. "Section 6 of the '44 Act permits this, while the '58 Act says this, and <br />WRDA '86 includes... .") It was VERY encouraging to see Federal. State, and local <br />entities sitting around one table strategizing the best path to get wet water in Chatfield. <br /> <br />The Corps was shocked to learn that of the estimated cost of one hundred million dollars, <br />only twenty million may be for "cost of storage". (If the Water Resource Development <br />Act (WRDA) can be reauthorized this year, Section 2019 may provide relief in the way <br />"cost of storage" is calculated, and so our actual cost of this component could be less.) <br />Pricing may also be based upon average yield, which is currently estimated at perhaps <br />7,000 ac-ft of the 20,600 ac-ft total anticipated by reallocation. Forty million may be <br />paid to relocate utilities, roads, picnic tables, bathrooms, the beach, and the marina. Forty <br />million may be paid to mitigate the inundation of cottonwood trees and birding habitat, <br />and perhaps Endangered Species Act (ESA) mouse habitat, as the mean reservoir water <br />level is raised twelve feet to provide for the reallocation. <br /> <br />All $100 million will be local funds paid by the fifteen local entities. State and Federal <br />expenditures will likely be limited to the costs of supervising the work. $400k has been <br />asked for completion of the Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement (FR/EIS) <br />in the FY'08 Federal budget. Similar expenditures will be needed in future fiscal years <br />for the supervisory work, and negotiating the contract with CWCB. This relationship <br />between cost of storage and mitigation is most unusual, but then again a three-foot <br />increase in the reservoir level is typical for Corps reallocations. A twelve-foot rise is <br />unusual. It was pointed out that the S. Platte basin is now thought to be 406,000 ac-ft <br />short of the water supply that will be needed by 2025. (While Chatfield storage is <br />critical, it is one small part of an overall solution that has not yet been completed.) <br /> <br />A seismic study will be undertaken for Chatfield dam. Funding for that work will come <br />from the O&M budget, and Corps funding for O&M appears adequate. It may be <br />