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 />Katie: But to support that statement, you don't need an appendix, you can talk about some work has been done, positive <br />benefits can be derived. Do we need this for the shelf or for the EIS now? <br /> <br />Betty: Decided that if you were worried about crediting and full ER study, that would delay EIS, decided to just say there <br />would be incidental benefits, and put those in a benefit, and then do an ER study later. <br /> <br />Katie: Priority is to get Betty what she needs and do the ER study later. <br /> <br />McAuliffe: If it's not documented, one of the policy issue raised, if we want this as broad as possible, we need to <br />document it now. Ifwe don't want to spend the money, don't do the study and put it in the Rod. Corps looking at, EIS and <br />recreation mitigation are two separate things. Corps may not have any authorization on recreation mitigation side. Does <br />this have to be completely state funded... when thinking about what you want this person to do, review or comment on <br />recreational mitigation, if it's more than that, we can't go there because the Corps hasn't decided on that. Careful on the <br />breath of area you want the consultant to be able to do. Any questions for me? <br /> <br />Rick: I didn't understand what you said. Tracy has been... <br /> <br />McAuliffe: Ifwe say we would like this Prebles expert, we want them to work with the users and TT and do some <br />planning" right now I don't think that that's a portion that the federal funding can pay for. TT is going to bill by the hour <br />for every moment they spend with that person. Difference on what we can do with EIS documentation, and mitigation <br />planning in the future. That's why we established the subcommittee, what can the Corps pay for now, or what they can't. <br />And can they use the info? <br /> <br />Rick: So the Corps can work with the users, and never talk with TT, and be OK? <br /> <br />McAuliffe: Yes. Be careful what you want this person to do, and how to split this out. For next FR/EIS meeting, ask them <br />to attend and then ask for a report as to whether they can do this. (Dan leaves) <br /> <br />Tom: Other proposals being floated around, Steve Doherty, various people who might be interested. Victor? <br /> <br />Victor Anderson: Partner, was involved with whether or not the regulatory branch of the Corps had been brought into <br />Chatfield discussion due to wetlands and Preble impacts. Question for the Corps, have there been discussions with <br />regulatory branch? <br /> <br />Betty : Yes, I have discussed the matter with Regulatory. Only need to discuss wetlands that are impacted, not by <br />reallocation of water, but impact on recreational areas or distribution areas that impact wetlands. Section 7 consultations, or <br />Prebles habitat that would be included they suggested instead of coordinating with F & W service on Section 7, they said <br />those acres of impact could be included in the conceptual mitigation plan as Corps prepares for entire reallocation study. <br /> <br />Rick: I wasn't aware there were other people at the Corps... who are the regulatory people? Part of the Omaha office? <br />This conversation is a surprise to me. <br /> <br />Betty: Margaret Langworthy provided an email indicating the requirements for impacts to wetland. <br /> <br />Rick: When you reviewed Chapter 1, then does it go over to regulatory and they provide their comments? <br /> <br />Betty: It goes over to Fred Rios at Trilakes. <br /> <br />Rick: Then is Fred the regulatory office? <br /> <br />Betty: Fred is the Trilakes. Margaret Langworthy is the person to whom the Chatfield Reallocation Project has been <br />assigned for review purposes. <br /> <br />Rick: So when the prelim draft EIS, it will have been reviewed by Omaha and the Colorado regulatory branch? <br /> <br />Tracy: There are also a lot of folks with a substantial say in this. If you don't have adequate communication things can be <br />denied. Even though this is not a water supply project in itself, we have to be careful to keep pushing communications into <br />headquarters. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.