Laserfiche WebLink
y' <br /> 1 <br /> Detail of napping: <br /> Phase : will first look at it with USGS level of detail to get a relative idea of costs. <br /> Then develop an idea of the area required and possible location. <br /> Phase : narrows it down to the 2 most viable alternatives. Other criteria may now become more <br /> important, the criteria will be fine tuned. <br /> Phase 6 will include more detail. including use of assessors maps for site locations and land available <br /> For the pipeline,they see more environmental obstacles than technical is'sues. <br /> Torn asked if the pipeline preliminary design is to the same level as a phase 6 proposal's <br /> Steve said there would be more detail in the pipeline preliminary design. <br /> As they said in their proposal, they believe this can be accomplished by eliminating one phase,by <br /> getting the four alternatives down to one in just l step. <br /> . Toni asked what they will do as part of the MEPA and DRI process and what is in their budget? <br /> SEA said if Mashpee adopts their recommendation for a phase A, to get DEP,ME PA and CCC on <br /> hoard right away and develop a joint scoping document. The EN' is the joint scope of work. The draft <br /> will be reviewed by CCC and ME PA for comments only. The CCC sees this as a partnering effort <br /> with Mashpee and MEPA. Their final report will be the I RI and EM. It is in their budget if Mashpee <br /> adopts their recommendation of Phase A, a single document which will satisfy all parties. <br /> Tom asked about special procedures or noxnaal MEpA process, which war should we g <br /> SEA said you can volunteer for special procedures. It works to your benefit because the document you <br /> produce is the EIR.- There is additional time requirements because of MEPA time frames for review, <br /> usually 45 day comment periods. MEPA may require a subsequent submittal in the middle of the <br /> process, between phases 4 & 5. MEP .is more interested in the process and that all stakeholders have <br /> input. <br /> Toni asked where-the Cape Cod Commission is in this process? <br /> SEA said they are involved in the s oping document from day 1. Their subcommittee tracts the project <br /> and holds their own public hearing for the draft EIR and the final EIR. They will hold a third public <br /> hearing to approve the project. <br /> Tony Zuena said he spoke to Andy Gottlieb of DEP who thinks the project meets the criteria for SRF <br /> funding. The application is due in April. If you are eligible you can borrow against those funds, it is ar <br /> reimbursement program. <br /> e said SEA tried to answer with the level of detail you are looping for without dramatic cost to the <br /> project. Tony, working with a professor from Worcester PolyT ch has identified 3 civil engineering <br /> seniors working towards their MQP who can work on this project. It provides a great level of hours <br /> towards this project. <br /> Torn asked if there is any possibility to cut some costs by combining? <br /> SEA said phase A.will undoubtedly add to this scope of wort (other agency requirements). They <br /> therefore suggest a contingency budget so there is something to draw on. <br /> Worn said their fee proposal i $250,000 with a$0-60,000 contingency. SEA thinks that is still <br /> appropriate. They were trying to be creative as possible in their proposal to save money. <br /> The real savings is being creative in developing solution, not in selecting the engineering finns. <br /> 4 <br />