FLOOD11215 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

needs of the FR/EIS so as not to interfere with the issuance of a complete and unfettered ROD. It was further stated that the group will support the Corps if they need additional funding to complete the study, but we need to know soon what the status is. The discussion then moved on to the agricultural (ag) credit issues. Tracy Bouvette stated that it is the intention of the Chatfield Project to incorporate the ag component (temporary ag use of the storage space), that is available as a result of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorizing language, into the FR/EIS through qualitative analysis only, to simplify the NED portion of the FR/EIS. This approach is something that the farmers and the CWCB support for the CWCB is willing to pay for storage in Chatfield based on the best and highest use (currently defined as municipal and industrial water supply) to simplify the FR/EIS economic analyses; accurately depict the changing use of water in the Denver Front Range; and allow the CWCB the ability to utilize Chatfield storage under future contracting with local water users with the maximum flexibility allowed under the WRDA 1986 project authorization. This proposed approach, which the Corps also supports, is expected to help stream line production of the FR/EIS and water contracting processes. John Micik said that the 1986 WRDA is very clear, and that this approach is allowable under that authorization. He also indicated that the packaging of the FR/EIS and the ROD, which is handled at the District, is very important with respect to how the final decision is made. As John Micik said, "presentation is everything." That led the Chatfield group to talk about obtaining comparable reallocation Records of Decision. John Micik commented that when you use the term ROD, you're referring to a final decision. In most cases the District Commander signed the agreement. Unless the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA) wants to review the report, it would be handled at the district level. (John Micik noted that he will have to check on whether the EIS has to be handled at the same time as the Feasibility Report.) John Micik again noted that it is important how the ROD is presented. The ROD is a stand- alone report, but it can be bound with the Feasibility Report. The District office is responsible for putting this together. All decision documents operate from the District level. Division is part of HQ. Micik noted that the Corps has people in HQ who will provide guidance on how to put together the ROD. He was not certain about reallocation RODs, but noted that HQ does have the format as to how they need to be put together. Tracy Bouvette asked how a reallocation differs in a situation involving a federal (Corps) facility versus a non-federal facility. John Micik stated he would see what he can find in terms of reallocation RODs; however, he indicated that reallocation projects do not require the same level of analysis and documentation as is needed for a new facility. The discussion then moved to mitigation issues. John Micik asked if the Chatfield group was looking for a model agreement that would separate water because there is a separate authority for temporary storage and use of water. Tracy Bouvette asked if, once the ROD is signed, can we begin design and construction since we have made progress on this. John Hendrick asked whether mitigation could be phased so that Chatfield State Park could continue to operate and generate revenue during mitigation construction. Tracy asked to what extent can we evaluate storing additional water in Chatfield during 3