Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chatfield Reallocation FRlEIS Study Meeting <br />Tetra Tech Conference Room, Lakewood, Colorado <br />Friday, September 28, 2007: 9:00 am - 12:00 pm <br /> <br />1) Introductions and Welcome <br />. Tom Browning, CWCB, chaired the meeting and began with introductions <br />. Betty Peak and Gene Sturm (COE) joined the meeting via speakerphone <br />from Omaha. <br /> <br />2) Project Schedule and Pending Delivery of Preliminary Draft EIS <br />. Eric Laux (CO E) stated that the economics data will be coming together <br />shortly and reminded the group that September 29th was a tentative due <br />date for the Draft. <br />. Rick McLoud (Centennial WSD) asked when the Water Users will see a <br />draft. Eric thought the end of October was a good timeframe. <br />. Eric reminded the attendees that Feb 2009 is the ultimate goal and that at <br />this point the best the COE can do is to have all the info come together in <br />October. <br />. Rick asked if there is a minimum amount of time for the COE Independent <br />Technical Review. Eric thought that review would probably take two to <br />three weeks. <br />. Eric said it is unknown how long the Water Users review will take-he's <br />hoping around two weeks. <br />. The public review is still scheduled for approximately February 2008. <br />. Rick said he wants the Water Users to be able to review the entire <br />document not just sections of it. Eric agreed, he does not plan to deliver it <br />in sections. <br />. Katie Fendel (Leonard Rice Engineers/City of Brighton) asked if it would <br />help to have all the reviews from the Water Users submitted to the COE <br />as one package. Rick added that he thought it would help the COE <br />address the comments in a timely manner if they were all submitted <br />together. Betty Peak (CO E) said that it was up to the Water Users on how <br />they wanted to submit comments and Eric added that the advantage to <br />submitting them together is that all the comments would be agreed on <br />before it goes to the COE. <br />. Betty pointed out that if the comments come in separately she can stagger <br />her work easier versus getting a large amount of comments at the same <br />time. <br />. Eric said that no matter how the comments come in he would like to see it <br />in electronic form similar to the web-based comment system the COE <br />uses with other documents. <br />. Gary added that the clearest presentation would be to have comments <br />correspond to line numbers in the draft and have a summary with who <br />made the comment and how the comment was resolved. The form used <br /> <br />1 <br />