FLOOD11659 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Pete Plage (USFWS), Tom R., and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) toured areas upstream of Chatfield on the Upper South Platte drainage which are part of the same Critical Habitat Unit that is potentially impacted at the Park. They looked at a project on Sugar Creek done by CH2M Hill where they are working on the stabilization of a road and sedimentation issues due to the Hayman Fire. The Forest Service suggested that while the project is going on they can help to indentify critical habitat. They estimated that for $5,000 to $10,000 CH2M Hill could add that portion on to their project. Rick pointed out that they give out grants as part of a separate process and there is already a grant given to this project so maybe it can be funded through that process. Eric cautioned to watch out when using federal matching dollars-if they are used there is the potential that Chatfield could not count all the mitigated acres. . Tom R. added that anything they do in the Upper South Platte would have to be above and beyond what USFS would already be doing in order to count those acres as mitigation for Chatfield. Kyle Hamilton at CH2M Hill could develop a better scope of work if the Cooperators are interested. Pete's concern about this particular site is that if they work in fire-impacted areas a heavy rain event could undo all the work that has been done-this could affect how they do work in this drainage. . Rick and Tom B. both asked if this concept of doing work now (before the ROD) and getting credit for what they need to do in the future is going to work. Steve pointed out that this occurred in a previous project for the Douglas County HCP so there is a precedent for that. Pete said that as long as it is something that wasn't required anyway there is an argument that it can be applied towards future mitigation. Eric said that he will have to check because there are COE rules on that but added that it must be clearly defined to be used by this project. Eric also wants to check on projects on Forest Service land. Ann Bonnell (Audubon Society of Greater Denver/South Platte Sierra Club) added that the priority should still be connecting habitats close to the park because species could become genetically isolated if there are no corridors for connection. . Karen Sitoski (CO E) asked about what happens when existing mitigation sites are impacted by the reallocation. Pete answered that if an existing mitigation site gets impacted then the ratio is typically doubled (twice as much acreage is required). The two existing projects that Karen could think of that will have this issue are the sewer main and water line on Plum Creek. . Question from Gary to Tom R. and others: Aren't the possibilities for mitigation within the Critical Habitat Unit limited? Thus, increasing the importance of fully considering any possible projects that may come up? Tom R. said that the Conceptual Mitigation Plan creates guidelines but he takes the approach that they need as much flexibility as we can so as opportunities come up it is important to follow up on them. However, the guiding principals of the Plan would still have us look at the habitat subunit in the park first and then look upstream for other opportunities. Pete Tetra Tech 6