Laserfiche WebLink
<br />B. FR/EIS Ap"p.roach and NEP A Process IssueS <br /> <br />Statement Bl: <br />· Confirm the existing Project Purpose and Need <br /> <br />Considerations: <br />· Restate and confirm the purpose and need: "reallocate storage in Chatfield Reservoir from flood control <br />to joint flood control-conservation purposes" <br />· Confirm that the concise statement continues to be acceptable <br />· Discuss any new NEP A policies that may impact our current path forward <br /> <br />Questions for Vertical Team: <br />· Can the Project Delivery Team move forward using the existing definition ofthe Project Purpose and <br />Need? <br /> <br />Statement B2: <br />· Confirm that the project alternatives are acceptable as currently scoped <br /> <br />Considerations: <br />· The current alternatives are: Two Action alternatives (20,600 AF Chatfield reallocation and 7,700 AF <br />Chatfield reallocation) and the No Action alternative. <br />· No other alternatives are required for analysis <br />· Ok to use a "rolled up" approach for the No Action alternative rather than reporting 15 different water <br />user scenanos <br />· The future "without project" scenario and alternative sources of water supply would need to be <br />developed as part of the No Action alternative for comparison to the proposed reallocation. <br />· It is expected that there are only limited (and expensive) opportunities to increase useable water supply <br />in the South Platte basin. <br />· No need for a separable benefits analysis (related to alternative development and evaluation) <br />· The currently accepted reliable yield is 7,000 AF from the 20,600 AF of storage space. <br /> <br />Questions for Vertical Team: <br />· Are the project alternatives acceptable as currently scoped? <br />· Can the water users work directly with the CWCB to provide a "rolled up" version of the alternative <br />sources and costs of water supply scenarios for the No Action alternative? <br />· Is there any reason to suspect that additional alternatives would need to be analyzed at a later time? <br />· What process will the Corps use to determine acceptance of the reliable yield value? <br /> <br />Statement B3: <br />· Cumulative Impacts will be evaluated <br /> <br />Considerations: <br />· Only existing or approved projects in the area of interest are to be considered, not projects that are <br />speculative in nature or not yet approved <br />· Windy Gap firming will be discussed in the report <br />· Assume that Tetra Tech will use the general approach described in CEQ handbook <br />o Is the resource especially vulnerable to impacts <br />o Is the proposed action one of several similar <br />o Do other activities in the area have similar impacts to the resource <br />o Have other analyses indicated cumulative impacts concerns <br />o Have identified effects been historically significant to the resource <br /> <br />2 <br />