Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Tom: Gene has been trying to reach out to the ITR review team. <br /> <br />Rick: Don't you coordinate with people above you with how they are going to work with this? <br /> <br />Betty: I do not coordinate with people above. Item #6, Eric might be going on the Washington Trip. Dave Brandon may <br />be going too. <br /> <br />Rhonda Sandquist: For the wetlands we need to mitigate, the standard for mitigation is something we would be working <br />with you. <br /> <br />Betty: They may impact Prebles habitat, so they would be part of the Section 7 consultation. Prebles and migratory birds <br />also. <br /> <br />Rhonda Sandquist: Trying to determine what this mitigation would be determined on.. . all those things covered by the 404 <br />rules, trying to determine if they would apply. <br /> <br />Betty: Any wetlands impact we identify that are due to not just raising the water level but actual normal section 404 impact <br />such as if a boat ramp relocation causes a coffer dam to be built in the lake, then a 404 permit would be required for that. <br />Or if the crossing over Deer Creek is relocated impacting wetlands, there would be a 404 permit required for that. Margaret <br />Langworthy said for us to make the application out, then their office would decide what kind of permit action would be <br />pursued. I have a 1 page Word document saying what kind of actions could be required at Chatfield, and whether a 404 <br />permit would or wouldn't be needed, I can provide this document to Tom who could send it to everybody on his list. <br /> <br />Rhonda Sandquist: That would be appropriate. <br /> <br />Tom: To keep this moving.. . any other proposals?. . what about the idea of hiring Don Glaser? <br /> <br />Mark Shively: I put together a little chart on how you as a coordinator to a specialist might work...ifyou are not going to be <br />coordinating consultants perhaps somebody should be. <br /> <br />?: So he's still a person of interest? <br /> <br />?: Glaser? I think so. <br /> <br />Tom: My point being, figure out how many people are going to be involved, the cost, get them on board and get them to <br />help out. Dan says do we kick the tires and see how it works out and have them come to the next meeting? ... that's just <br />another idea. Grab a hold of this idea of the committee that is forming and use that as the proper vehicle to work out these <br />Issues. <br /> <br />Glazer? (Green shirt): Committee is a good idea.... <br /> <br />Lisa Darling: straw vote? <br /> <br />Tom: Committee? How many people support small to medium committee to direct this and bring back to group. Show of <br />hands? Any strong objections? <br /> <br />Dave Giger: How is this going to be used in conjunction with ROD? <br /> <br />Tom: As soon as possible up to the ROD and past it. This committee, correct me if I'm wrong, committee would work with <br />existing consultants, Dave, Marge, Tracy, and in additional with anyone we bring on board. Agreement on that? OK, now <br />get into more detail. 3 people originally, Greg, myself and Rick, expand it to 6, I don't have any strong opinions either <br />way. Appropriate number and members, open to ideas? <br /> <br />Lisa Darling: Whoever shows up, need specific designees or number? <br /> <br />Rhonda Sandquist: Need number and designee, but open so anyone can come. <br /> <br />Tracy: Biggest change suggested is someone of in-stream. Denver Water? Is that OK? <br /> <br />??(Checked shirt by door): I think instream is good, not sure Denver water right one. <br />10 <br />