Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />of this information in the revised report as they would like but the next submittal must respond in <br />some way to these issues. <br /> <br />We have the following specific comments and questions on the July 1996 draft report: <br /> <br />1. Maps and drawings, in addition to the General Location Map in Figure 1-1, would be <br />useful for both the reservoir site and the irrigated lands served by the reservoir. <br /> <br />2. The Vouga Reservoir Association Articles ofIncorporation in Appendix A were not <br />signed or dated. Some explanation should be provided. <br /> <br />3. "Financial Status" on page 2-1 provides very little information upon which to draw any <br />kind of conclusion. In addition, there is no financial summary for the VRA in Appendix C <br />as stated here. <br /> <br />4. On page 2-2, how was the valuation of$2,000 per acre for the Labrouche irrigated lands <br />arrived at? <br /> <br />5. On page 3-1, some description of the 1994 hydrologic investigation should be given. Was <br />this for the spillway hydrology? <br /> <br />6. The water rights discussion on page 5-1 is inadequate and does not provide enough <br />information to allow an indication of the physical and legal availability of water to the <br />reservoir. A preliminary analysis was done by the CWCB staff and is attached to this <br />letter as mentioned above. <br /> <br />7. For what period of time are storage records available for Vouga Reservoir? <br /> <br />8. The next to the last sentence on page 6-1 states that the topography of the dam and <br />spillway is shown on Figure 6-1 which we were unable to find. <br /> <br />9. If some soils investigations of the abutment and embankment areas were done, as <br />mentioned on page 6-1, a brief summary of those investigations should be given on this <br />page. <br /> <br />10. The discussion of alternatives beginning on page 7-1 needs to be expanded to include first <br />a general discussion of all of the alternatives considered and how they were developed as <br />well as more descriptive information for the two alternatives which were evaluated. For <br />Alternative 1 there is nothing to indicate where the emergency spillway and fuse plug <br />section are located. The discussion of Alternative 2 provides very little information to <br />visualize what is proposed. What's needed here are some plan views for both alternatives <br />along with better descriptions. <br /> <br />11. Some type of implementation schedule should be given showing all of the steps in the <br />planning, design, and construction process. <br />