Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the Cooperators' concerns. Tom B. assured the group that these <br />contracts will not be made in a vacuum and that there will be input from <br />Cooperators when the contracts come together. He added that the intent <br />is in the EIS and the ROD and it will be carried into the contracts-the EIS <br />and the Mitigation Plan really are the bullet points that they will go by. <br />. Rick pointed out that the mitigation not only involves moving facilities but <br />operations and maintenance into the future and he wanted to know if the <br />issues will be lined out in the initial contracts. He gave the example of <br />weed control when the reservoir level is low. Eric said that they have <br />reviewed contracts from other similar projects and they are thinking of all <br />these issues. He also informed the group that there is a design phase for <br />these contracts after the feasibility studies are done. Brooke said that <br />those kinds of resources will be helpful for the public outreach process <br />because these types of issues are what the public is concerned about. <br />. Steve said that they have analyzed the Preble's component with enough <br />specificity to know what they are looking for in land attributes but not too <br />specific to zero in on certain properties. <br />. Dave asked about how economics play into the mitigation-specifically <br />does the Environmental Mitigation Plan take into account if it is more <br />expensive to mitigate in the park? Gary said that they are looking at <br />mitigation in the park first no matter the cost. Mary Powell (ERO <br />Resources) added that the cost is a weighted value-you get more value <br />the closer to the impacts you are and the best value of mitigation is <br />weighted more heavily than the cost. <br />. Steve pointed out that the conceptual mitigation plan will have public input <br />before the COE would require a detailed mitigation plan. This gives <br />everyone a chance to dive into the details of the plan. It is too much of a <br />load to try to figure out all of that out at the draft level. So the plan right <br />now is a broad plan that will be refined as input comes in. Right now in <br />the draft EIS it is difficult to give the defined plan. Eric added that this <br />allows for flexibility and that there will be monitoring and reporting during <br />the formulation of the plan. The formulation process is going to be <br />controlled but broad enough for flexibility. The endangered species issue <br />will, by nature, be more tightly controlled. <br />. Steve said that they just recently received the GIS data they needed with <br />the topographic data updated. The bad news is that they have lost a few <br />weeks on the wetlands and cottonwood gallery forest plan formulations. It <br />will be an iterative process with Tom R and Gary and other entities to put <br />these plans together and he just wanted to let the group know about the <br />delay. <br />. Eric wanted to clarify that the topographic issue did not get resolved <br />quickly because the COE did not get a contract modification in place in a <br />timely manner. <br />. Tom R. pointed out that the Cooperators will see some of what they've just <br />discussed about the Conceptual Mitigation Plan in Chapter 4. <br /> <br />Tetra Tech <br /> <br />5 <br />