Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Basin Fact Sheets: Our Basin Planning Fact Sheets hllve been transferred from a pdf format <br />into web pages. These revamped fact sheets are now more interactive, providing links to the <br />various agencies sited as data sources, and other sites that provide more information on <br />endangered species, compact agreements, and water conservancy and conservation districts. The <br />Fact Sheets can be found at htto://cwcb.state.co.us/Fact Sheets/Basin Planning.htm <br /> <br />Watershed Protection Fund Grants: The CWCB rec.eived a total of sixteen applications (6 <br />project grants and 10 planning grants) by April 30, 20Q3. Except for the Big Thompson <br />Watershed Forum that submitted one application in each category, the CWCB received only one <br />application per applicant. Copies of these applications were sent to the WQCD and Colorado <br />Watershed Assembly (CW A). Copies were also made available to the CWCB and WQCC <br />designees for their independent review. <br /> <br />Staff at the CWCB and WQCD and the CW A representatives reviewed and scored these <br />applications according to the Program Guidance approved by the CWCB and WQCC designees. <br />All three entities used the same score sheet to evaluat~ the applications. <br /> <br />On June 24,2003, staffs of the CWCB and WQCD, as well as CW A representatives, met in an <br />effort to develop a joint recommendation to the CWCB and WQCC designees. Below is a brief <br />description of the procedure used to rank the applications. <br /> <br />The individuals reviewing the grant applications included Bill McKee, Kathleen Reilly, Dan <br />Beley and Randy Ristau for the WQCD, Brian Hyde apd Bahman Hatami for the CWCB, and <br />Richard Fox and Chris Rowe for the CW A. Two applications (Rico and CSU-Pueblo) were <br />disqualified because they did not meet one or more of!the Basic Applicant Qualification criteria. <br />The remaining projects were then ranked by each resp:ective entity, were then compared to each <br />other on a matrix. The highest ranking applications fdr all three agencies were remarkably <br />similar. The final ranking was derived based on the average ranking value for all three agencies. <br />Tablel in the following page shows the ranking resuWalong with the requested and <br />recommended grant amount, and specifies whether they are planning or project grant. <br /> <br />The CWCB expects to receive the funds in the latter Rart of July 2003. A tentative estimate of <br />approximately $100,000 or more is highly likely. Bljsed on this estimate, CWCB and WQCD <br />staff and CW A representatives assessed the respectiv~ needs for the top ranked projects within a <br />$110,000 ceiling. This assessment identified that partial funding ($23,000) of the North Fork <br />River Improvement Association project would allow partial, ifnot full, funding of the Eagle <br />River project based on the final contribution total. All entities agreed on this partial funding <br />alternative. <br /> <br />The designees are scheduled to meet July 21 to discuss the CWCB, WQCD, CW A <br />recommendations. Please note that according to the ~rogram Guidance, grants should be <br />awarded by September 30, 2003. . <br /> <br />Colorado Watershed Protection Fund 2003 Grant iA <br /> <br />A licant <br />James Creek Watershed Initiative <br />Coalition for the U er South Platte <br />Bi Thorn son Watershed Forum <br /> <br />Rank <br />1 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />lication Rankin <br />Funding Recommended Planning Grant <br />Request Funding I Project Grant <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />$15,000.00 <br />$20,000.00 <br />$15,000.00 <br /> <br />$15,000.00 <br />$20,000.00 <br />$15,000.00 <br /> <br />Project <br />Project <br />Planning <br /> <br />e <br />