My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150002 Contract
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
C150002 Contract
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2011 10:39:14 AM
Creation date
4/9/2007 2:52:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150002
Contractor Name
Grand Valley Water Users' Association
Contract Type
Grant
Water District
0
Bill Number
SB 97-8
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Contract Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />The Grand Valley Water Management File <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Bill Green <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />February 10, 1998 <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />Grand Valley Water Management Draft EA <br /> <br />I have reviewed the Grand Valley Water Management Draft Environmental Assessment <br />of December 1997 in light of the feasibility requirements in the Construction Fund <br />Guidelines and have the following comments and questions: <br /> <br />. I think the draft EA does a good job of describing the concept and the possible <br />impacts of the proposed Grand Valley Water Management Plan (GVWMP) as well as <br />the implications of the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is used <br />effectively in the report as a baseline to measure the impacts of the proposed action. <br /> <br />. After reading the report, I am still not entirely clear on the relationship between the <br />water conservation aspects of the GVWMP and the use of water from the Historic <br />Users Pool in Green Mountain Reservoir. The report actually does a good job of <br />discussing both and maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part with respect to <br />a very complicated arrangement amongst the various parties to the use of Green <br />Mountain HUP water. <br /> <br />. It's not entirely clear whether flows in the IS-mile reach are increased by an average <br />of 19,000 or 28,000 acre-feet per year. <br /> <br />. A schematic diagram and preliminary design layouts would be helpful in better <br />understanding the project. <br /> <br />. Feasibility-level cost estimates are needed. <br /> <br />. A project implementation schedule should be provided. <br /> <br />. It would be helpful to have a summary (possibly in matrix form) of all institutional <br />requirements or actions needed for project implementation such as contracts, court <br />actions and permits. <br /> <br />Cc: Bill Stanton <br />Randy Seaholm <br />Linda Bassi <br /> <br />, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.