Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> <br />Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />721 Centennial Building <br />131 3 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3441 <br />FAX: (303) 866-4474 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Covernol <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board Members <br /> <br />William P. Stanton, P.E. and Bill Green, P.E. ~// <br />Project Planning and Construction Section ipC7 <br /> <br />l~mes S. Lochhe~d <br />Executive D,reClor, DNR <br /> <br />D~ries C. Lile, PE. <br />Dirf'ctor. CWOl <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />DATE: January 27,1997 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Agenda Item 14.a., January 29-30,1997 Board Meeting - Water Project <br />Construction Loan Program - Non-reimbursable Grants - Native Aquatic <br />Species Facility <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />At the November 1996 Board meeting, the Board discussed a native aquatic species facility and a <br />specific property in the San Luis Valley which might serve as a site for such a facility. A major <br />issue in the discussion was the,$600,000 appraisal of the property. The action taken by the Board <br />was to recommend a $2.0 million grant for the project in the 1997 Construction Fund bill. <br /> <br />Prior to the November 1996 Board meeting, the only proposal for this project which the staff <br />had the opportunity to review was the August 30, 1996 memo to Chuck Lile from John Mumma. <br />In October 1996, the CWCB staff communicated a number of questions to the Division of <br />Wildlife staff regarding the San Luis Valley proposal. Some of our specific comments were: <br /> <br />1. One of the primary requirements for any project proposed to be financed from the <br />Construction Fund is an analysis of alternatives and the justification for the selected <br />alternative. We believe that the technical evaluations used to screen and evaluate <br />alternative sites in the 1993 State of Colorado Hatchery Feasibility Study for Endangered <br />Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin report represent an appropriate procedure for <br />this type of project. We would suggest that the same type of analysis be applied to the <br />proposed San Luis Valley site and that the results of that analysis be used to compare this <br />site with the other sites evaluated in 1993. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />The question of water rights should be addressed in sufficient detail to give at least a <br />preliminary indication that sufficient water is available or could be made available to <br />meet the purpose(s) of the project. <br />