Laserfiche WebLink
Section 6 <br />Implementation and Recommendations for Colorado's Water Supply Future <br />~ Each BRT should identify additional attributes <br />that are reflective of local importance in their <br />basins. <br />~ Further work in identifying the density of fish <br />species should be considered as part of the BRT <br />Needs Assessments <br />~ As part of nonconsumptive needs assessments <br />distinguish between areas that have been sampled <br />but no species were present versus areas that have <br />not been sampled. <br />~ For vegetation coverages further identify where <br />CNHP has identified areas with low or no <br />conservation value. <br />~ The GIS attributes and datasets that have been <br />developed as part of SWSI 2 and will be developed <br />as part of the BRT Nonconsumptive Needs <br />Assessments should be continually maintained by <br />the CWCB in cooperation with CDOW. <br />~ Develop a common technical platform for assessing <br />environment and recreation needs is important. <br />This includes making sure the process undertaken <br />provides consistency and comparability within <br />and between the basins. <br />6.2.4 Addressing the Water Supply <br />Gap TRT <br />The Gap TRT recommended that the future work <br />should evaluate the water supply alternatives using <br />similar assumptions and the group suggested that a <br />more detailed evaluation of the options be performed. <br />Development of comparable costs would be beneficial <br />since there were differing assumptions on capacity, <br />capital and O~eM costs, yields, water rights, delivery <br />locations, water treatment, etc. for each water supply <br />alternative. <br />The general direction of the Gap TRT was to perform <br />a detailed evaluation of each option using the <br />following assumptions and approach: <br />~ Delivery of similar water quality. <br />~ Common or comparable storage areas should be <br />included for all options. <br />~ Common or comparable termination points should <br />be included for all options. <br />~ There should be a range of water delivery; the <br />suggested range was 100,000 -175,000 - <br />250,000 AFY. <br />~ BRTs should continue to examine funding options The TRT also suggested the following evaluation <br />and alternatives. elements be included: <br />~ Include Capital and O~eM costs as net present <br />worth and annualized cost (infrastructure and <br />operation and maintenance) and cost per AF. <br />~ Additional information be added to the matrices <br />that outline some of the initial benefits, impacts, <br />and attributes of the options. <br />~ Information and suggestions regarding base <br />options (options that would be added to the major <br />structural options) be obtained from the BRTs. <br />~ Conservation be considered in developing <br />alternatives. <br />~ The Decision Support System be used to perform <br />additional analysis of supply availability. <br />~ Additional information be included regarding <br />existing storage and infrastructure opportunities. <br />PRELIMINARY DRAFT 6-17 <br />