My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD11224
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD11224
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:17 AM
Creation date
12/28/2007 4:00:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Jefferson
Arapahoe
Basin
South Platte
Title
Chatfield Reallocation Study: Vertical Team Issues 01/18/2007
Date
1/18/2007
Prepared For
Meeting Participants
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Presentation/Handout/Sign-in Sheet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />Merged Issues Paper - DRAFT <br />Vertical Team Meeting <br />Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Study <br />Developed jointly by USACE and CWCB <br /> <br />~. Chatfield Reallocation Policy Issues <br /> <br />Statement AI: <br />· Pursue "best possible schedule" <br /> <br />Considerations: <br />· FRlEIS continues as currently scoped and contracted <br />· No major amendments to the FCSA <br />· Obtain Record of Decision (ROD) as expeditiously as possible <br />· Use concept of "Interim Report" to keep the authorization open <br />· Ecosystem Restoration would remain on the table but would be dealt with consecutively rather than <br />simultaneously (unless ER pursuit can occur with no impact to ROD for reallocation) <br />· The project authorization remains open so that following the execution of storage contracts, a fresh look <br />at reallocating some ofthe storage could be undertaken by the team. Similarly, an analysis of <br />reallocation possibilities at Bear Creek Dam may later be considered. <br /> <br />Questions for Vertical Team: <br />· Can the Project Delivery Team move forward with the existing FRlEIS study using the "Interim Report" <br />approach? <br />· If there is sufficient funding, it is the intent of the Project Delivery Team to continue looking at ER <br />separately, on a somewhat parallel track. Does NWD/HQ concur with this approach? <br />· What approvals need to take place, and how long will they need to perform a review once they receive <br />the draft? <br />· Are there any other special considerations that the Project Delivery Team should be aware of? <br /> <br />Statement A2: <br />· The project will not require Congressional approval <br /> <br />Considerations: <br />· Authorizing language states that Congressional approval required if there is a significant change in <br />operation. <br />· Non-federal sponsor and local water users would assert that there is not a significant change in operation <br />· The reallocation authorization already exists in approved legislation <br /> <br />Questions for Vertical Team: <br />· Can the Project Deliver Team assume that further Congressional approval is not required for the <br />Reallocation portion of the project? <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.