Laserfiche WebLink
. <br />PRRIP - ED OFFICE FINAL 07/16/2008 <br />177 <br />178 Boyle presented the screening process, criteria, and scoring. Projects were discussed on an <br />179 individual basis and scoring was evaluated. Potential issues and opportunities with combining <br />180 alternatives were explored. <br />181 <br />182 The spreadsheet modeling tools that Boyle prepared in Phase I were discussed. Under the Phase <br />183 II scoping, Boyle was not to apply those tools to evaluate alternatives until the reconnaissance <br />184 level evaluation of 3 alternatives. <br />185 <br />186 Mike Drain commented that alternatives with ID 6 through 12 are similar storage projects off of <br />187 CNPPID's system; ID 7, 8a, and 8b return flows to the river via the existing J-2 Return whereas <br />188 the others would require new return structures. Should these be evaluated together? Elwood is <br />189 unique because it is an existing structure. <br />190 <br />191 The WAC acknowledged potential benefits of studying some of the identified alternatives for <br />192 other purposes (e.g. Robb Lake should be considered for hydraulics/geomorphology <br />193 opportunities; the Summer Pulse via Exchange of EA will probably be tested by other Program <br />194 activities and results will likely be more influenced by GC discussions rather than technical <br />195 feasibility studies; Choke Point Improvement may be further evaluated once the 3,000 cfs <br />196 improvement is achieved). <br />197 <br />198 The WAC agreed that downstream reservoirs give opportunity to add more water out of Lake <br />199 McConaughy and supplement natural flows from the South Platte to provide ability to meet <br />200 frequency of objectives used to create the 5,000 cfs pulse target number. Cost analyses should <br />201 consider power interference. <br />202 <br />203 Kent Miller made a motion to further investigate the following 3 alternatives, Mike Besson <br />204 seconded, and there was consensus from the WAC. <br />205 <br />206 • Elwood Reservoir - ground water issues with respect to seepage losses should be <br />207 considered, including dewatering wells or method of taking credit for seepage/recharge <br />208 <br />209 • Plum Creek Sites <br />210 <br />211 • Off-Channel Central Platte Reregulating Reservoirs generally associated with CNPPID <br />212 facilities that release directly to the River <br />Page 5 of 5