Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />1.7.2. RARE PLANT SURVEY. <br />On February 18, 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a final rultl to <br />list the plant Ute Ladies' -Tresses (Spiranthes diluviaUs) as a Federally threatened species <br />under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.c. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). On <br />October 18,2000 the USFWS issued a final rule to list the Colorado Butterfly Plant (Gaura <br />neomexicana ssp. Coloradensis) as a Federal threatened species under the ESA. Both <br />species share a common habitat, very generally, riparian areas of Colorado. <br /> <br />Under provisions ofthe ESA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for <br />conservation and protection of any Threatened or Endangered Species occurring on Corps <br />project lands. The presence or absence ofthese two Federally Listed Threatened plants <br />needed to be ascertained in order to assess potential impacts of proposed alternative plans <br />for water storage reallocation at Chatfield Lake, presently under study. <br /> <br />A survey was conducted by amending the current contract (DACW45-03-C-0016) with <br />Tetra Tech FW, Inc. Surveys were conducted in the years 2004 and 2005. The contractor <br />complied with all criteria established by the USFWS. Detailed description of tasks that <br />have been performed are provided at Appendix D. <br /> <br />1.7.3. RECREATION STUDY. <br />A separate study is being conducted to evaluate the impacts ofraised pool level and pool <br />fluctuations for each alternative on the location of the Chatfield State Park recreation <br />facilities and potential impacts of recreation use of the lake. So far, work has been <br />completed on the 20,600 acre foot alternative. Further investigations still need to be <br />conducted for the 7,700 acre foot alternative. <br /> <br />1.7.4. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (ER). <br />As agreed by the sponsor and the Corps, a small effort was made to initially investigate if <br />various release strategies from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River could be <br />pursued in order to provide ER benefits. A draft scope of work was created to provide an <br />outline of approximately how much work would be required to pursue ER. Early <br />investigations by the Corps and Sponsor showed that the reallocation alternative plans will <br />likely have some incidental benefits to the downstream ecosystem, and that further <br />refinements to flows would potentially provide additional benefits. <br /> <br /> <br />After the initial inquiry, it was agreed that the "best possible schedule" should be pursued. <br />Due to funding constraints and the added complexity involved in considering reallocation <br />for ER, it was agreed that a reallocation report without ER would be pursued. While not <br />being pursued in the current study, the authority to pursue other purposes will remain <br />open, and can be pursued in subsequent efforts under the WRDA 86, Sec. 808 authority. <br />Findings from the initial analysis will be included in the final report in order to show the <br />incidental benefits of the project to ER. A draft scope of work for pursuing ecosystem <br />restoration can be found in Appendix E. <br />2. PRODUCT DELIVERY TEAM (PDT) MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION. <br /> <br />4 <br />