Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Sheela Stack (Harvey W. Curtis and Associates for Perry Park Country <br />Club) said that Perry Park Country Club also does not support hiring a PR <br />firm at this time. <br />. Brooke Fox (Chatfield Basin Conservation Network) wanted to clarify that <br />going through the process to hire a PR firm is not meant to undermine <br />what the COE and Tetra Tech are doing. The PR firm they chose is <br />named Webb PR. Webb PR would put together information and let the <br />public know that this process is going on. If there needs to be an update <br />to the information sheet or the website Webb PR would do that. Once the <br />draft is released Webb PR would contact the elected officials involved and <br />the media. Everything would go through the COE for approval before <br />anything is released to the public. The proposed cost is $50,000 and <br />would be paid by the Cooperators. This contract would go through the <br />release of the Draft and would include the website updates and hotline. <br />. Eric pointed out that the proposal from the Webb PR talks about their <br />involvement in public meetings but he wants to make it clear that Tetra <br />Tech is the lead on the meetings. He also reiterated that no contract <br />would be signed without the COE approving the scope of work from Webb <br />PR. <br />. Fred Rios (CO E) added that there are signs printed and are ready to be <br />posted at Chatfield but they have not put them out because he was told to <br />hold off. Dave said that the dates on the information sheet are inaccurate <br />so they have not been distributing it and they are holding off on posting <br />the signs until the information sheet and website are updated. <br />. Eric responded that if his approval is what is holding up getting the signs <br />out he will take care of that ASAP. <br /> <br />7) Discussion Item: Environmental Mitigation Plan and Incremental <br />Cost Analysis <br />. Eric began the discussion by pointing out that an incremental cost analysis <br />as it relates to environmental mitigation is looking at it from the "more <br />bang for the buck" standpoint. There is more output for habitat relocations <br />if they stay onsite at Chatfield. The next step out would be Forest Service <br />land because it is already federally owned so costs would be kept down. <br />The next step would be private land. From an output standpoint, finding <br />land connected to Chatfield would be the best situation. The least <br />favorable output would be private land not connected to any Chatfield <br />corridors. It takes a lot of cooperation from state and federal agencies to <br />make this successful <br />. Question from Katie: can this approach be used for the recreation <br />mitigation as well? Eric answered that it can be used but not to the same <br />level. It will be important from a recreation modification standpoint. Eric <br />would like to get together with Fred, Dave, and Tom B. to get updated on <br />the recreation issues. They will coordinate schedules in the near future. <br />. Eric explained in greater detail the new COE model certification process. <br />An Engineering Circular (temporary; before a regulation comes out) has <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />Tetra Tech <br />