Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Dan told the group that given the cost of implementation - range is $80-$100 <br />million for recreation and environmental mitigation, cost of storage and cost of <br />water - we need to know how much money will be needed and when. Dan <br />described the CWCB process - going to the board in November 2007 with a list of <br />needs to be included in the 2008 projects bill, then (following approval by the <br />legislature) having that money available as of July I, 2008. He said the Corps <br />might have some flexibility on the cost of storage. Users need to estimate when <br />they will need money and whether they need a bridge loan or a long-term loan and <br />how much and when. He said the deadline for loan applications is August 2007. <br />CWCB needs to know how much loan money will be needed in order to make an <br />informed request to the legislature for next year's project bill. <br /> <br />. Feedback to Tetra Tech will occur through Tom Browning and local USACE staff <br />(Sandy Rayl). Specific feedback will include input on the meeting agendas, <br />coordinating water user comments, etc. These efforts will be conducted on at <br />least a monthly basis throughout development of the EIS/FR. <br /> <br />. Finally, the coordinating meetings will be used to help establish a process for <br />developing a reservoir operations plan leveraging work by both subcommittees. <br />The operations plan will follow and be integrated with the outcomes from the <br />subcommittee efforts. <br /> <br />Project Status Issues <br />Ag Water - Discussion moved to agricultural water issues. Dan said this could be a <br />problem for Tetra Tech to include in the EIS. He said it could mean adding a chapter <br />to the EIS and could cost more and take more time. He also said we have kept the <br />environmental restoration issues simple and out of the EIS. We may need to do the <br />same with agricultural issues. Then when the EIS is done, the general investigation <br />account for Chatfield will still be open. We could still use that to explore potential <br />assistance for ag water. Also, we might be able to use existing Bureau of <br />Reclamation or Corps authorities. Tracy said the agricultural water cost issue has to <br />pass the cost/benefit ratio test if it is included in the EIS - and it may not pass. The <br />National Economic Development standards are based on return on investment. <br /> <br />Tom Cech asked if there is any advantage to having the EIS include agricultural <br />water. The reply was No. Dan said we have a policy route to get bucks for ag water. <br /> <br />WRDA - The group discussed the Water Resources Development Act bill now <br />pending in Congress and said we need the language in the bill on cost of storage. <br />Marge Price said the Corps may not want to push for specific language; they may <br />want more flexibility. We just need to check with them on it. Rick said Marge needs <br />to deliver the language to the group. Tom Cech said the decision makers will <br />determine policy. Tracy said we may need to talk with Jim Fredericks (Corps <br />Northwest Division Portland office) and make sure that the language we need on <br />economics is included in the ROD. <br /> <br />ER - The ER effort will re-start in May to develop some additional modelling and <br />document past and current modelling efforts. The ER effort, described in the scope of <br />work, is expected to be completed in the third quarter of this calendar year. <br /> <br />3 <br />