My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD11203
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD11203
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:16 AM
Creation date
12/28/2007 3:49:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Jefferson
Arapahoe
Basin
South Platte
Title
Chatfield Reallocation Study: Meeting Minutes 10/02/07
Date
10/2/2007
Prepared For
Meeting Participants
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Meeting Summary
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />folks here today tell us you want us to do it, want by end of Oct. We're only looking at the <br />fisheries. Wording went through for more? As we understand we are looking at fisheries, we <br />know what he needs, we need OK to go forward. What will it cost? Don't know, haven't got <br />hold of biologist who would now, generate maps, runs, a few thousand dollars, $5 thousand <br />dollars. <br /> <br />Teresa: It's part of that $19K? <br /> <br />Tracy: $19K relates to putting together the additional modeling we talked about last November. <br />We have some hydrology we need to look at. We look at runs, and do some additional runs, then <br />do a document draft and final. Letter report is a separate deliverable, so that isn't really included <br />in the $KI9. However, we understand there are some issues about what money is or isn't there, <br />speed is important, if we get a go-ahead on this, we can go forward on this, we know what we <br />need to do, could try and develop the letter report and then bring bill in with the additional <br />hydrology and hydraulics so we can go forward with the ER. The modeling will help us in the <br />future. I think the recreation and the mitigation will benefit by the ER being completed. As we <br />develop over the past 18 months, this was part of the output. This may be one of the best reasons <br />on moving forward with the ER. Even if it doesn't get us any credit with the Corps. Benefit in <br />working with Recreation mitigation, affects wintertime water. <br /> <br />Theresa: I think we have a budget put together, bring it back. <br /> <br />Rick: The $5K is not part of the $19K, that's part of the ER work. Letter report is outside of <br />that. <br /> <br />Ken Brink: I was assuming the $5K needed for the report would be included in the $19K. <br /> <br />Tracy: We can do it if we get the go ahead. Without talking with Bill Miller, we can figure out a <br />way to get the letter report done in the $19K. Maybe for less. But we need the go ahead to start <br />movlllg. <br /> <br />Ken: I polled all the users who pitched in, most said in favor going forward with the original <br />scope of work, but it has changed with inclusion ofletter report. Didn't put forth to other users <br />that there would be a problem with this. <br /> <br />Lisa - We need to get started on this. <br /> <br />(Side Discussion of budget allocations and payments) <br /> <br />Austin: By including the ER work in the EIS that left the door open for ER credits with just an <br />EA, and not a supplemental EIS. How do we leave the door open for the water users, <br />contractors, how to come back after the contract has been signed to work out for the water users. <br /> <br />Rick: This group should give Tracy the green light to do the letter report as soon as you can so it <br />can be included in the PElS, similarly, the whole $19K. <br /> <br />This document represents the personal staff notes of Susan Maul and are not to be considered a formal record of <br />this meeting. <br /> <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.