Laserfiche WebLink
<br />has been given to ERO Resources and they will begin a more detailed <br />analysis. Tetra Tech/Ottertail and ERO have discussed next steps and <br />agreed on distribution of action items. <br />. Brooke Fox (CBCN) reported that on Monday a tour took place at <br />Chatfield for Cooperators. Ken conducted the tour which focused on <br />environmental impacts and mitigation in the park. Brooke felt like it was a <br />very positive experience and it was helpful to have Tom R. available to <br />talk about mitigation and impacts. ERO Resources is going to look into <br />the frequency of inundation at two foot intervals and it was helpful to <br />visualize that while at the park. A movie was shown that demonstrates the <br />impacts of inundation. Ken agreed that copies of the movie will be made <br />for interested parties. <br />. Fred Rios (CO E) said that the question of carryover storage in the <br />reservoir has been asked and he was looking for some input from the <br />Cooperators. Katie Fendel (Leonard Rice Engineers/City of Brighton) said <br />that the plan is to fill the reservoir when they can and then all 15 entities <br />will call the water out when they feel it is necessary. This information is in <br />the hydrology appendix and she pointed out that it will be available for <br />Steve to look at when looking at mitigation. Fred pointed out that the <br />issue is how to minimize environmental impacts when the water is called <br />out. Katie responded that the bottom line is that they have water rights <br />and they will take the water when they need it. Ken added that it was <br />apparent to the group on the tour that water fluctuation will be a big issue. <br />. Gary reminded the group that mitigation will occur both inside and outside <br />of the Park, but priority will be within the Park. Some mitigation for <br />Preble's will need to be offsite. Eric added that typically for COE projects <br />mitigation occurs before the project begins but Chatfield is different <br />because the facility already exists. There is no policy against catching <br />some water as part of the reallocation before the mitigation is complete. <br />Brooke said that the schedule of mitigation is an issue that the <br />environmental community is concerned about-they want to make sure <br />the mitigation does occur and that it is successful which is why <br />benchmarks are vital. Cecily Mui (South Suburban Parks and Recreation <br />and South Platte Park) added that the environmental community is <br />concerned about the timing of the land acquisition not so much the <br />construction mitigation. Eric responded that contract documents that are <br />put in place are not going to spell out everything to the letter-they will <br />refer back to the EIS. <br />. Ken wanted to know if the contracts for mitigation will be reviewed by the <br />Cooperators to ensure that the spirit of intent will be captured. Eric is not <br />sure what the public review process is for the mitigation contracts but <br />knows that the contracts will not be done at the same time as the EIS <br />because there are so many moving parts. The ROD will be referenced <br />when the contracts are but together. <br />. Brooke asked that they come up with some bullet points in planning the <br />mitigation that would keep in touch with the environmental community and <br /> <br />Tetra Tech <br /> <br />4 <br />