FLOOD11213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jim Saunders: Probably attributable to me, but that's a more detailed discussion that we can get into now. Model in place to link is suspect, that particular topic is scheduled for November. We are having monthly meetings with Chatfield basin authorities, and have a schedule laid out for each technical topic. Rick: If we are in the middle of an EIS, doing the analysis, and then in the middle of the process we may have a draft EIS, your process may change that draft or final. Validity of what we have done may be questioned. That's where there is quite a lot of concern. We're doing a lot of work based on assumptions, close to goal, then the control regulation may change. Is this a threat to our EIS work? Jim Saunders: I don't know what decisions the Corps would make, I didn't get a sense there would be a problem by conducting this review. Review doesn't change anything. When recommendations are made, that's the time to debate the Issue. Rick: Appreciate what you said, if it opens Pandora's box we will be back. If there is a way to finesse this with this caveat, that you aren't planning on throwing a monkey wrench into this EIS process, if there's a way that that could be locked into what it is, I wonder if WQCD could assert this so we wouldn't have this fear facing us. If it does become an issue, reassure us that it won't be an issue. Jim: I'm not in a position to give you that assurance, not at my level, approach my director for assurance, this is not a time to press for restrictions on anything, its just a review of technical issues identified long ago. Tom: other questions? Lisa Darling: Doesn't it boil down to question of what will be the impact of additional study on water quality? Rick - Two studies, your study not looking at additional storage Jim: Response of the reservoir to phosphorus. Knowing there will be changes in operation doesn't mean there will be changes to responses to loads. ... we have a very narrow interest in making predictions, we are linking phosphorus loads. Tracy: What were those exceedences in time? Is this a much bigger issue we should be concerned about? Jim: Normally we would be concerned about one exceedence. Can't be more specific. If you look at the fact sheets for the reservoir showing phosphorus concentrations, you can see them. Tom: Jim, anything you need to know about what we are doing to help your work? Jim: I'm curious about the modeling effort, heard about it, I am interested in the work underway now. Tom: We have Eric on the phone now, Eric can you talk about this WQ issue? Eric: As far as the model on the contract we are through with that so they should be able to carry off the rest of their work on the WQ. Did we match up with what the state is doing, defer to what Jim Saunders said, let Betty talk a little bit about technical aspect of phosphorus. In the reservoir. From the standpoint of the EIS I don't see significant effects, especially on the timeline I hear from Jim, it sounds like Nov of 08 when they will have some kind of recommendation to the Commission, not necessarily changing recommendations, but what they think they should pursue setting newer controls. Hopefully we will have completed the EIS beyond this timeframe of any new controls. Secondly, am I going in the right direction, Tom? Tom: I think you're on the right track. Betty, technical issues? Eric: Does anyone need to be reminded what we are doing? Rick: Ifwe had the ROD before Nov 08, and then Nov 08 the WQCD had some changes, would that reopen the ROD? Eric: I don't think they will have new controls by then... there would be recommendations of controls. Jim: Potentials for changes in the standards may be, chlorophyll standard added. Implementation piece and total max annual load of phosphorus, that is not gong to change at that step, if anything built into a schedule of studies and discussions over probably the next 3 years. 3