My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD11204
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD11204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:16 AM
Creation date
12/28/2007 3:50:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Jefferson
Arapahoe
Basin
South Platte
Title
Chatfield Reallocation Study: Meeting Minutes 11/01/2007
Date
11/1/2007
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 />Mary Powell: Try to dial in on regulatory kicks that provide a floor or ceiling, and then ask <br />about acre for acre? Functional replacement one on one? May not be exact type of replacement. <br />We want to try and stake out the parameters we can work on, most important is regulatory <br />parameters. It will show us what we can work with. <br /> <br />?: Ifwe don't meet those we have a problem. Not get approved. <br /> <br />Rick: TT has been working on this for years. Tom is meeting with the top boss in Omaha <br />tomorrow. I would like you to express our concern with this process. Chapter 4 and 5 <br />frustration. It isn't that close to be distributed, but it's supposed to be. Somehow would like to <br />get that sense of how close are they? When is it going to happen? Such a critical part of what <br />we're doing. This mitigation component.. . from your input, when will all this come together? <br />When will the concept plan be a document? <br /> <br />Mary: Our goal is to provide. Tom gave us an outline, we've identified places where we will <br />provide text to incorporate, will have that to them in the next couple of weeks. It's conceptual, a <br />lot of stuff will have to move forward and get more specific. Ifwe do this, we feel it will fit in <br />with their target, but we didn't hear a firm date. <br /> <br />Steve: (?) We've been sitting here for two years waiting for this. The fact we only got it a <br />couple of months ago, we are far behind in the process. We just got the info on impacts. TT has <br />only been working on it a couple of months. Weare pretty new in that process. I share your <br />frustration in getting the EIS don, but we're doing a lot of catch-up. <br /> <br />Rick: When will it come all together? 3 months? 1 month? <br /> <br />Steve: We don't have a good clue on the other moving parts or timeframe. For the PDEIS, that <br />mitigation can and should be conceptual. Demonstrate, yes, it can mitigate the impacts, it's <br />feasible, the cost associated doesn't make infeasible, and it has enough info there the reader can <br />understand what is being proposed for mitigation, that's good enough. Have to have a cost <br />estimate. Cost? Timing? <br /> <br />Tom: At an earlier meeting this week, we have two different approaches. We know there is a <br />desire to move in a different direction, was it pushback? What it felt like? <br /> <br />Steve: Feel like we're in here at the 11th hour. They were very receptive to have us do that, we <br />can do it without slowing them down. Also, looking at Tom's table, it doesn't take you all the <br />way there, it's a problem. <br /> <br />Karen: Different impacts due to the recreation need to be tied in. <br /> <br />Ken: There was a meeting a month ago when that was given to TT. <br /> <br />Steve: They mentioned they also have to tie to historic data. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.