My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD11213
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD11213
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:17 AM
Creation date
12/28/2007 3:54:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Jefferson
Arapahoe
Basin
South Platte
Title
Chatfield Reallocation Study: Meeting Minutes 09/04/2007
Date
9/4/2007
Prepared For
Meeting Participants
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Meeting Summary
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Rick: When would they make a decision to change the standard? <br /> <br />Jim: Earliest to approve a recommendation would be Nov 08, not to make the change yet. <br /> <br />Rick: It's in the next June they would act on it? <br /> <br />Eric: It would be at that time they would act on it. I guess I would be more concerned if I were a water user is how it <br />would change the way I used it. <br /> <br />Rick: Not wanting to take an EIS moving forward toward a ROD to be stopped. <br /> <br />Katie Kendall: I'd like to add one thing, in this case not needing 401 certification, so there isn't a step where the state <br />would have to verify it. <br /> <br />Eric: For mitigation work there would be 401 certification, but that would not be a phosphorus issue. <br /> <br />Katie: That 404 certification would be another part of the 401, BMPs to be put in place. <br /> <br />Rhonda Sandquist: If the EIS comes out in Fall of 08, its based on the existing control and standard regulations, right? <br />Then we would deal with the uncertainty in November. <br /> <br />Rick: Could this be delayed a year? <br /> <br />Jim: It's the timetable for the Commission, looking at this it only comes up every few years. Why postpone until Nov of <br />08, why defer studying it? Propose to study it, if there is a change to propose, then free to ask Commission at that time to <br />defer any action through the public process. We send out proposal of public notice in July, several months to review and <br />comment. <br /> <br />Tom: We've got a couple more people coming in, Bob Peters, Austin... . Coordination issue discussion, Jim, will keep in <br />contract with you and you will be on our distribution list. <br /> <br />Jim: Can I leave now? <br /> <br />Dan McAuliffe: Quarterly WQCD meeting, couple of weeks ago, talked about this. Next November. <br /> <br />Tom: Thanks, Jim, appreciate you coming (Jim leaves) Item #4 - encompasses existing work of GWI and CR, recap on <br />meeting held in Rhonda's office, and lastly, where we go with any other consultant efforts to help this project out. State <br />that it's not necessarily my job to be directing the activities of consultants hired by water users, but overall coordination, <br />absolutely a big part of the puzzle. Item 4a, turn over to water users to talk about this. Some of this will be tied to things <br />like the DC trip. Tracy talk about roundtables? <br /> <br />Rick: Early in this year we talked about a process, reason why we had a coordination meeting instead of a progress <br />meeting. Focused on other efforts being made and the coordination of those efforts. Process difficult, several consultants <br />and 15 entities putting money in to support the efforts. Even one entity has a lot to say, lots of cooks in the kitchen, <br />monthly meetings to talk about what happened, and consensus of what should work in future. This way actions are not <br />surprises, and no meeting with small amount of people notified. Process here, from Centennial's point of view, often don't <br />know what's going on until we see an invoice, and often they are vague. Being out of the loop is what these meetings are <br />intended to get around. Jointly talk about what recently done and what are coming up. Keep on same page. That's the <br />idea. Every one of these coordination meetings should have high on the agenda consultant coordination discussions. I <br />asked to have this added to the agenda because I think we have been missing the boat on this. Question of bringing in <br />additional consultants. Not just Tracy or Capitol Representatives, but anyone who is fulfilling our roles. Group decision <br />making. <br /> <br />Tom: On Aug 22, had a robust discussion on this subject, trying to come up with strategy of works, also the formation of a <br />small committee, Greg, Tom, Rick on this committee, rather than committing who they are, there is this small committee <br />being formed, upstream, downstream and CWCB reps. Meet on regular basis to talk about this and bring it to the larger <br />group. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.