My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
JOHN ROBINSON CONSULTING, INC.
Clerk
>
Contracts / Agreements
>
J
>
JOHN ROBINSON CONSULTING, INC.
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2021 9:58:39 AM
Creation date
1/21/2021 9:55:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Contracts
Company Name
JOHN ROBINSON CONSULTING, INC.
Contract #
N-2021-019
Agency
Public Works
Expiration Date
1/31/2021
Insurance Exp Date
1/1/1900
Destruction Year
2026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Brian Ige 2 of 4 December 2, 2020 <br />which is required in order to receive Title XVI funding. The red text are comments received <br />from Bureau of Reclamation preliminary feedback for this application. <br />Section 4 - Description oj'Alternatives: <br />BOR questions to be resolved: <br />b. Statement of the specific objectives all alternatives, including the reclamation, recycling <br />or desalination project, are designed to address. <br />f. Description of one or more alternative technologies that could be used in the proposed <br />water reclamation, recycling or desalination project under consideration. These <br />alternatives must be approvable by the state(s) or tribal authorities in which the project <br />will be located. <br />.Section 5 - Economic Analysis Section: <br />BOR Comment: The main section that needs to be revised is section 5, Economic Analysis. It is <br />not clear what the water supply alternatives to the proposed Title XVI project are. It seems like <br />the proposed Title XVI project is the combination of Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3A, Phase 3B, and <br />Phase 4. <br />BOR Comment: The water supply alternatives (D&S criteria 5(b) and 5(c)) should be <br />alternatives to the entire proposed Title XVI project. Table 7-2 just provides the scoring values <br />and description of each scoring value and does not actually discuss project alternatives. It also <br />appears that the study does not directly address criteria 5(a) or 5(d). <br />BOR Questions to be resolved: <br />a. The economic analysis included in the feasibility study report shall describe the <br />conditions that exist in the area and provide projections of the future with, and without, <br />the project. Emphasis in the analysis must be given to the contributions that the plan <br />could make toward alleviation of economic problems and the meeting of future water <br />demand. <br />b. A cost comparison of alternatives that would satisfy the same demand as the proposed <br />reclamation, recycling or desalination project. Alternatives used for comparison must be <br />likely and realistic, and developed with the same standards with respect to interest rates <br />and period of analysis. <br />Section 7 — Project Alternative Analysis <br />BOR Comment: Section 7.7, table 7-2 shows a comparison of alternatives but does not provide a <br />description of each alternative (1, 2, 3, and 4). <br />BOR Comment: Table 7-2 just provides the scoring values and description of each scoring value <br />and does not actually discuss project alternatives. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.