FLOOD11215 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

construction or does mitigation have to be completed first? John Micik responded that, if recreation users buy into the plan, mitigation could be phased; there is flexibility in the 1958 WRDA. He also indicated that storage may precede mitigation efforts if the mitigation is not undermined by the stored water. Staging water storage increases over a transition period may also be possible. He said the Assistant Secretary of the Army always asks: What is the benefit? What is the impact? The current ASA John Paul Woodley is reasonable on these issues. Tom Browning asked what happens should Mr. Woodley leave before another appointee is in place. John Micik stated that George Dunlop, ASA Principal Deputy, would be named as acting ASA. John Micik noted that senior staff within the ASA's Office (e.g., Claudia Tornbloom, John Perez) will serve a key role in reviewing and supporting action on the FR/EIS for the ASA. Tom Browning stated that we are looking at Colorado State Parks taking the lead on the recreational mitigation. He also noted that there will be no decrease in flood control benefits; Chatfield will maintain flood control benefits with the increase in the pool level. John Micik indicated that there was no specific reason that USACE absolutely had to take the lead on recreation or environmental mitigation. The management arrangement will need to be worked out between the federal and non-federal sponsor. The issue of storage space contracting was the next subject. Tracy Bouvette noted that Chatfield will be the first of its kind in Colorado and within the Omaha District for this type of contract. We need to understand how the contract will dictate the cash flow requirements from the CWCB to the Corps that would keep all parties whole. John Micik stated that usually you take the total acre-feet and make simple calculations upfront. The interest rate is set by law based on the Treasury rate, which is adjusted every five years and amortized over 30 years. There is flexibility in how repayment is made. Tracy noted that the current project is projected to cost $100 million with 20 percent of those costs for water storage and 80 percent for environmental and recreational mitigation. Tom Browning mentioned that the CWCB plans to be the single contracting entity with USACE for water supply storage space, and would essentially pay for project expenses as they arise through agreements with the local water users. The CWCB does not want to bind itself to a long-term payment agreement with the Corps. Water users will need to front the needed funds based on their prorated share of the reallocated space. Tom Browning noted that whatever break the Corps can provide on the "cost of storage" component helps with the overall cost of implementation John Micik commented that a 12-foot rise in the conservation pool is pretty significant, which justifies the relatively high cost for mitigation. John Hendrick said that there will be a fair amount of construction involved. John Micik said he would supply a format of a water supply agreement that can go for the full 30-year period or can be pre-paid. He then indicated that the agreement between the CWCB and the Corps may consist of two or more agreements (e.g., the project cooperation agreement and the water supply agreement) that may be developed in various formats with various exhibits but packaged into a single document. The exhibits may include content such as how much money is involved; the share of OMRR&R; amortized other funding upfront; etc. Part of the contract may also address contributed funds (see below). 4