FLOOD11216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FR/EIS - around December 2008). Under this scenario, which is the quickest that State parks could move forward with the recreation mitigation design, State Parks would begin their contractor procurement process in January 2009. This schedule would require that CWCB and the water users commit funding prior to January 2009 to support the contractor procurement process, and that State Parks and CWCB execute some kind of binding agreement (e.g., IGA) to guarantee that the funding is in place for design, at least, and perhaps design and construction. Therefore, State Parks, CWCB, and the water users will need to have a good estimate of design and construction costs to forge this agreement. Dave indicated that recreation mitigation design would take more than 1 year - more like 18 months - and the design would need to be reviewed by USACE for compliance with the FR/EIS, 404 Permit issues and issuance, land use regulations, etc. This may impact the design and construction schedule. There is also a question regarding how the construction of the recreation mitigation should be staged - with closure of the park or with the park open. Closure of the park would presumably allow the construction to proceed faster, however no access to the park by area recreators may meet with substantial opposition. Some effort may be need to engage area recreators and obtain information on their opinions and interests. Eric Laux indicated that getting public engagement going forward would likely need to be run through USACE HQ to develop process and methodologies. Kathy Sitoski indicated that some park visitors have come to the USACE offices at the Visitor Center and asked questions regarding the reall ocati on proj ects. Contract Issues The discussion then turned to discuss additional contracting issues. For example, Dave Giger indicated that it was unclear how Omaha USACE staff would be paid for their time during the recreation mitigation design and construction review and oversite. Also, the question was asked whether or not State Parks (or the local non-federal entities) could perform the combined recreation and environmental mitigation design and construction in a coordinated effort with appropriate USACE review and oversight. Eric indicated that this may be able to occur for there was no specific regulation or precedence for the project to be performed otherwise. It is in part a question of how the USACE will be funded given the mitigation efforts are 100% locally funded. Given all the contracting issues that are open at this time, Tracy indicated that the August ih Coordination Committee meeting would be important to further the contract discussions and help characterize water user needs and expectations (e.g., timing of cash flow, timing of financial commitment, etc.) and it would be of benefit if more of the decision makers and water users are present at that meeting. Other Relevant Issues EPA and the ROD - Dave was interested in whether or not the ROD would be subject to appeal after it is executed. Eric indicated that once the ROD is signed that is "pretty much it" and there is no expectation for it to be re-opened as part of an appeal process. The 2