FLOOD11213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

General Talk about the webpage Tom: Basically Denver agreed as the project moves forward, we've been receiving questions from public and constituents, rather than having multiple responses it was the consensus to funnel everything into one place, right now its a dedicated Chatfield page at CWCB, and Denver agreed to channel their web info into this. We're creating a short F AQ sheet. We had pretty good support from Trina, their public information specialist. Teresa: Betty, very appreciative that they were invited to the meeting. Feel it was a good meeting, creating a dialogue with them. Brief Statement on mitigation on the highline canal. Tom: If it didn't cost anything? Would they at some point in time if they had excess water would they lease from storage providers, even if Denver didn't have any water stored? Tom introduces new arrivals Tom - I've invited Jim Saunders, WQCD, to talk about water quality issues and EIS involved with reallocation effort. Jim Saunders: This will be impromptu, not prepared, but helpful to talk about history of what division has done. Division undertakes reviews of water quality standards periodically, recently we approached Commission and said we'd like to undertake a detailed review of the technical aspects of control regulation of Chatfield. Control Regulation provides the basis for controlling the phosphorus levels that reach the reselVoir, with the aim of maintaining the water quality. In the past, standards for phosphorus have been exceeded, also chlorophyll. This was a mismatch of conditions in a technical sense, and led us to ask for this review. What happens is we will work with Chatfield watershed, basin authority, and go through the technical pieces that are important underpinnings of the regulations and produce for the Commission a proposal. Weare not empowered to make changes, just present recommendations at the end of the review period. That's a fairly narrow scope of activity, not changing things, just reviewing. So we were surprised to learn that there was some concern in stakeholders that our review had potential of run afoul of the EIS, either delay it or confuse water quality issues, and this was not our intent. In conversations we had last week with Eric Louts we concluded there isn't any serious risk involved here. No threat to the EIS from our actions. We have been addressing concerns on the part of stakeholders for some time, expect to continue doing that, have a transparent process in this review. But will go for several months and won't have recommendations until we conclude this review. Any questions? Tom: Talk about timeline? Jim Saunders: We're going through a series of meeting over 8-9 months, each one detailing a technical feature of the control regulations. If warranted in June, make a proposal to the Commission. They won't look at it until Nov of next year, at that point if they agree with the proposal, possible changes would be adopted. Tom: Any questions for Jim? Rod Kuharich: The exceedances you talked about, any related to the Hayman fire? Jim Saunders: Possibility, that idea has been advanced, but no linking documentation. An idea that has some traction. Rod K: Point and nonpoint? Any non-point source controls that could be placed if there was a recommendation from the Division to reduce the standards? Jim Saunders: That's an interesting area, nature of additional controls that might be a recommendation. Our technical review does not get into allocations or additional controls. If looks like phosphorus level is too high to sustain the water quality, likely our recommendation would be to set forth a timetable for investigation to investigate the changes, but that's about it. ? - I heard there was a bigger and better model? Elaborate on that? 2