Laserfiche WebLink
<br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />Oeparlmenr 0; ~.al~ral Resources <br /> <br />.323 Stale CenfennrJI Building <br />1313 Sherman Sfree! <br />Denver. Colorado d020) <br />?none: 130)1839-3441 <br /> <br />, --Qf'CQZO, <br />/^-v,,/ ,.::, "~" <br />'~I -:;"lft; '~'. <br />rim ~~' 0\ <br />..,; ~- <br /> <br />....,-~/.., <br />~/ <br /> <br />MEMO-RANDUM <br /> <br />,{IC:1ilrd D. ~Jmf'"l <br />C(J"~r"or <br />). ',\Ii!:Jin \.1c:Je,jhlI1l <br />Dlff'rtor <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Members, CWCB <br /> <br />DaVid \\!ajk~r <br />JeoUl~- OirE:uor <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Bi 11 McDonald <br /> <br />D,ATE: <br /> <br />September 17, 1981 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />Agenda Item 5, September 23, 1981, Board Meeting <br />S.B. 439 Feasibility Studies <br /> <br />Requests for Proposals <br /> <br />Please find attached the requests for proposals (RFPs) which <br />I recommend that the Board adopt for the four subject feas ibi Lity <br />studies. As you are aware, these RFPs were circulated in draft <br />form to a wide range of parties. Each RFP has been re, ised in <br />I ight of the comments received to the extent I thought it <br />appropriate to do so. <br /> <br />In acting pn these proposed RFPs, there are three main issues <br />to which the Board should address itself. First-, each RFP pro- <br />vides that the fedsibility studies will not include an analysis <br />of the non-monetary recreational, environmental, social, and <br />cultural impacts of a project. While the projects under study <br />would undeniably have such impacts (both beneficial and adverse), <br />I do not think that $300,000 is a large enough sum to adequately <br />complete preliminary engineering and construction cost estimates <br />as well as preliminary environmental and social impact analyses. <br />Furthermore, if a proposed project is not found to be engi- <br />neeringly and economically feasible, then environmental and <br />social issues and impacts will never need to be analyzed. Thus, <br />I am of the opinion that the studies should focus exclusively on <br />the threshold questions of engineering and economic feasibility. <br />Environmental baseline studies and impact analyses should then be <br />a part of follow-on studies .if any of these projects are found to <br />be promising. <br /> <br />The second issue of which the Board should be cognizant is <br />the fact that the Hardin Dam and Cache la Poudre RFPs call for <br />traditional economic analyses (i.e., cost/benefit analyses), <br />whereas the Yellow Jacket and Una Dam RFPs call for just an <br />analysis of the construction and O&M costs of a project. The <br /> <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION SOARD. Frederick 1/. Kroeger. Chairman <br />RObert A. Jackson. Vice Chairman .. Jonn R. Fetcr.er, Steamboat Sorings <br />C.M. Furneaux, Walden. Flo\'d L. GaIZ. Monte Vista. Patric:i: A. Gormley. Grand Junction <br />Richard W. Johnston. Montrose . Oavi~ W. RObbins. Denver. Heroert H. Vandemoer. Steriir"!g <br />