Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Environmental) had brought up in a previous meeting (March 13th, 2008) a <br />potential U.S. Forest Service/private consultant rehabilitation project in the <br />Hayman burn area. Eric advised Rick to let Betty know that the <br />Cooperators have not started moving forward on this yet. Rick said that <br />the Cooperators have not seen the Mitigation Plan yet so they have not <br />been moving forward on researching sites. <br />. Question from Ann Bonnell (Audubon Society of Greater Denver and the <br />South Platte Chapter of the Sierra Club) to Eric: What is your experience <br />with the COE in terms of offsite mitigation and continued maintenance? <br />Eric answered that the mitigation is going to be up to the Cooperators if <br />the project gets approved. There will be an O&M manual that goes along <br />with the Mitigation Plan. He added that the bottom line is that the COE will <br />have to ensure that sites are being maintained because federal dollars are <br />being used. <br />. Anne asked if there is a period of time that the Cooperators are <br />responsible to ensure that maintenance is taking place. Eric said that <br />there is a long-term contract with the Cooperators for the storage of water <br />into perpetuity. If the Cooperators want the water, there will be a contract <br />in place that states that the mitigation will take place. From a cost <br />standpoint, the operation and maintenance of the reallocation is a small <br />amount in comparison to the infrastructure construction that will take place <br />if the project gets approved. <br />. Katie added that it will be very important that the public understands that if <br />the project is approved, mitigation will go on in perpetuity-it is not just a <br />process that will take place once. <br />. Gary said that part of the cost-per-acre estimates for mitigation includes <br />maintenance and monitoring into the future. <br /> <br />3c) Additional Data Needs for PDEIS completion <br />. Gary has received information on Costs in the last few weeks and things <br />are still coming in from the Water Users. He will continue to request <br />things as needed from individuals. <br /> <br />3d) FRlEIS Chapters and Appendices <br />. Chapter 5 has been reviewed by the ..c_Cl~~ ~[i~ _I!~~ds_ ~o_ ~i! .d9~n_ '!"!t~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -1 Deleted: COE, <br />Chuck Hillerson (Tetra Tech) at some point to go over cost estimates. <br />Gene Sturm (COE) has been going through poorly-organized records <br />trying to find a way to move the mid-point of construction for Chatfield up <br />to provide a more appropriate estimate of costs. They have decided that <br />1979 will be the impoundment date which moves back the midpoint to <br />1974. This will move the cost-of-storage estimate back to $34,000,000. <br />This leads to a savings of about $8,000,000 compared to earlier <br />estimates. This update will be incorporated into Chapter 5. <br />. Question from Tom to Eric: When Gene does his economic analysis for <br />the 20,600 acre-feet alternative does he use the whole cost or what the <br />water users actually pay? Eric answered that the whole cost will be in <br /> <br />Tetra Tech <br /> <br />5 <br />