Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1984 <br /> <br />Study recommendations more easily funded by Corps and other federal agencies. <br />Other federal agency participation more easily procured. <br /> <br />Cons: Delay in study start of 2-3 years. <br />Corps has no groundwater expertise and would have to subcontract out. <br />Corps must control study contract. <br />Increased likelihood of additional costs. <br />eWCB cost share is $500,000 - $650,000 <br /> <br />Alternative No.3 <br /> <br />The State mana!!es the basin-wide studv investigation. Study would be funded mainly by <br />the State with subcontracts and MOU's with other federal and state agencies. Study <br />effort would include I)hydraulic/sediment investigation, 2) historical research, 3) <br />recommendations for channel maintenance activities, 4) review ofreseIVoir operations, 5) <br />aerial mapping, 6) comprehensive groundwater analysis, 7) 100-year floodplain mapping, <br />and 8) vegetative management. The groundwater analysis would include I) quantity <br />analysis, 2) transmissivity analysis, 3) analysis of hydraulic damming effect of John <br />Martin Reservoir, 4) water quality analysis, 5) development of a digitized groundwater <br />aquifer model, 6) a water needs assessment which can be incorporated into the SEWCD <br />water needs assessment which is currently underway. <br /> <br />. Pros: Earlier study start than the General Investigation. <br />CWCB control of the study effort. <br />Use of Colorado-based contractors and consultants. <br />More local input. <br />More realistic completion schedule. <br />More flexibility to design and implement mitigation measures. <br />Less funding needed from CWCB than for the GI. Estimated at $420,000. <br /> <br />Cons: Reduced federal cost-sharing opportunities. <br />Increased CWCB staff time to manage the study. <br />Need to seek non-federal implementation funding for mitigation measures. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDA TON <br /> <br />The staff recommends that the Board discuss the Arkansas River Multi-Objective Upper <br />Reach proposed alternatives in detail at its July 1998 meeti: :. <br />