My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ02023
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
PROJ02023
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:39 AM
Creation date
7/9/2007 1:37:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
FS0044FX
Contractor Name
Larimer County, Board of County Commissioners
Contract Type
Miscellaneous
Water District
0
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Approval Letter
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 />. . <br /> <br />QIO: On page three, what is the date of the median household income figures and from what <br />source were they obtained? Where is the figure for the census tracts? <br /> <br />RIO: The median house income (MHI) for this basin is $16,181 based on the 1990 Census. <br /> <br />Qll: The descriptions of the project alternatives on pages six and seven need considerably more <br />detail as well as maps, drawing and itemized cost estimates. Options that were considered <br />within each alternative should also be described. <br /> <br />Rll: See response to Question Number 1. <br /> <br />Q 12: An analysis of alternatives comparing the costs, technical aspects, impacts and institutional <br />considerations (permits, contracts, court actions required, etc.) for each alternative and a <br />comparative evaluation of alternatives should be provided. A matrix evaluation is the usual <br />method of comparison. See Appendix B of the Guidelines. <br /> <br />R12: See response to Question Number 1. Since the comment review meeting on November 22, <br />2000 Larimer County has authorized URS to conduct an environmental assessment. The <br />environmental assessment includes evaluating threaten and endangered species, cultural <br />resources and wetlands impacts. <br /> <br />Q 13: A detailed description of the selected alternative should be provided to include fmancial <br />feasibility. <br /> <br />R13: The financial feasibility was included in Table 3 of the Dry Creek Flood Control Feasibility <br />Study. The combined Dry Creek Feasibility document will include revised language <br />explaining the details of the financial analysis. <br /> <br />Q 14: In the second paragraph on page seven, what is the existing mode of operation of the <br />Larimer-Weld system with respect to Douglas Reservoir? <br /> <br />R 14: Currently, the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company trades water with Water and Supply <br />and Storage Company through Long Pond when stored water can be released from Douglas <br />Reservoir. After that point stored water in Douglas Reservoir can't be released because of <br />the inadequate capacity of privately owned hydraulic crossings along Dry Creek prevent the <br />release of stored water from Douglas Reservoir reaching the Larimer and Weld Canal. <br /> <br />The proposed project does not impact the operations of Douglas Reservoir. The proposed <br />project assumes Douglas Reservoir is full at the time of the 100-year flood. Typically, large <br />storm events occur late summer when reservoir levels are low. If the reservoir level is low, <br />benefits downstream will be greater. <br /> <br />Q 15: On page nine, how do the amounts in Table 1 relate to the amounts in the test above? <br /> <br />R15: Table 1 will be superceded by the following table in the Dry Creek Feasibility Study: <br /> <br />Page 3 of7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.