My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
22
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:42:25 PM
Creation date
6/25/2007 2:29:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/20/2004
Description
WSP Section - SWSI Implementation Update
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 />. Control of Non-Beneficial Phreatophytes <br /> <br />Evaluate Generic Options <br /> <br />Generic options were evaluated in terms of their performance according to the water management <br />objectives developed by the Basin Roundtables, which include: <br /> <br />. Sustainably Meet M&I Demands <br />. Sustainably Meet Agricultural Demands <br />. Optimize Existing & Future Water Supplies <br />. Enhance Recreational Opportunities <br />. Provide for Environmental Enhancement <br />. Promote Cost Effectiveness <br />. Protect Cultural Values <br />. Provide for Operational Flexibility <br /> <br />Each water management objective has at least one associated performance measure that is used to <br />evaluate how well an option meets that objective. For example, how well an option meets the <br />objective "Sustainably Meet M&I Demands" is measured by "On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 does not have <br />the ability to reliably provide additional supply during 1950s drought and 5 has the most ability to <br />reliably provide additional supply during 1950s drought." <br /> <br />A score was given to each option, for each performance measure, using technical analyses (e.g., free <br />water estimates in a basin), engineering and scientific knowledge and judgment, and taking into <br />consideration the specific characteristics and issues for each basin. <br /> <br />COlllbine Option Evaluation with Stakeholder Preferences <br /> <br />Results of the above option-scoring evaluation were combined with the information on stakeholder <br />preferences (i.e., weighting of the relative importance of each objective for each Roundtable <br />member) to obtain individual ranking of generic options. <br /> <br />There are six basic steps for this option evaluation methodology as depicted in the figure below. <br />First, the technical analysis and engineering judgment provides information about the performance <br />of an option with respect to each objective's performance measure [Step 1]. This estimated <br />performance is translated into a numeric score [Step 2]. In this example, the option in question is at <br />the higher range of costs when compared to the other options, so the standardized score for this <br />performance measure (between 0 and 5) is 1 (a fairly low performance). <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.