Laserfiche WebLink
' Alternative H-1 Pro's <br />o The assumption of jeopardy due to any depletion would be eliminated. <br />o The degree of impact would be quantified any and conservation measure <br />costs would be tied to an impact .caused by the project. <br />o Allows administrators to identify ways that water might be rerouted <br />to maintain overall habitat conditions. <br />Alternative 8-1 Con's <br />o Sufficient field data does not exist to verify modeling results. <br />o Limited data are available far input into PHABSIM. Deficiencies in <br />data or differences in data collection methodology require the <br />application of judgment in use of the data. <br />o Historical and projected hydrological data input is not precise. <br />o Sufficient available PHABSIM sites are not to represent the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin. <br />o Any flow requirements may conflict with the priority of state water <br />law and interstate compacts for use of Colorado River water. <br />Alternative B-2 <br />Modeling would be used as an additional tool to assist in defining impacts of a <br />proponent's project rather than to specify jeopardy flow windows. <br />Alternative B-2 Pro's <br />0 Some of the assumption of impact might be eliminated and more <br />equitable mitigation costs than Alternative A or B-1 might result. <br />o Provides a tool to resolve flow conflicts. <br />Alternative B-2 Con's <br />o The discussion for Alternative B-1 applies. <br />Alternative C <br />Another approach would be, based on the presumatian of ieoPardy due to anv <br />depletion, to supply replacement water from dedicated storage ar Purchase of _ <br />water rights. <br />57 <br />