Laserfiche WebLink
<br />a) State Park's Issues and Concerns <br />i) Facility Relocation Plan <br />. Dave reminded the Subcommittee that the EDA W report is not a "recreation <br />mitigation plan" rather it is a facility relocation plan that only discusses the <br />feasibility of relocating facilities that would likely be inundated. <br /> <br />ii) Socio-economic analysis <br />. State Parks has provided the Corps with information related to the socio- <br />economic issues related to the Park. <br />. This information should be part of the Preliminary Draft EIS. <br /> <br />iii) Fiscal impacts to Park <br />. Dave stated his concern about the fiscal impacts to the Park related to the <br />project. <br />. Chatfield is the first state park in Colorado to bring in $2 million in revenue. This <br />revenue is spread throughout the Park system; therefore, decrease in Chatfield's <br />revenue will not only impact Chatfield but the rest of the State Park system. <br /> <br />iv) Timing and impact of construction <br />. The timing of relocation and construction of facilities could have an adverse <br />impact on the Park's revenue. Analysis of the project needs to consider this <br />factor and try to identify strategies to minimize such impacts. <br /> <br />v) Long Term maintenance <br />. State Parks is very concerned about the long-term maintenance of areas impact <br />by fluctuation in water levels. The fluctuation could cause a "bath ring" effect <br />which may create an undesirable environment for park visitors and wildlife. <br /> <br />vi) Visitor experience <br />. State Parks feels that the visitor experience will change as a result of the <br />reallocation. It is unclear if this change will be positive or negative. State Parks <br />feels that this factor has not been fully considered. <br /> <br />vii) Land and Water Conservation Funds <br />. Brooke reminded the group that a portion of the initial water rights for the <br />Chatfield Reservoir were purchases using Land and Water Conservation Funds, <br />administered by the National Parks Service. A process will need to occur to <br />determine if the reallocation project would be considered as a "conversion" of <br />those funds. <br /> <br />b) Identify action items <br />. Understand the process that the NPS requires regarding potential conversion of <br />LWCF projects. <br /> <br />6) Education and Outreach <br />. The Subcommittee discussed the need to develop a strategy prior to the release <br />of the Draft EIS early next year. Ken Brink suggested that one piece might be for <br />State Parks to erect signs at key places within the Park (such as entrances, the <br />