Laserfiche WebLink
JUL -08 -2002 MON 09:10 AM <br />FAX NO. <br />thq Pro_ c Pro,,r� Lp -and alternatives relative to IJSI� W instream flow <br />i'c'COI1l111C11d�11lulls.. <br />The ililllacts that various g11.ernativcs (including the Proposed Progrartl) would have on ROWS 111 <br />ills central Platte are beill�; "scored'" for cotltpaailiva purposes in the Programlllatic El, on the <br />1.lasis elf tltc cxtcrit to which they reduce shortages to species and annual pulse flows. 'Phis is <br />consistent with the basis for calculation ofhistoric shortages to targets (item 41). <br />13ccalise 'scorilig, is typically calculated on a monthly shortage (trot daily shortage) basis usittf,T the <br />Opstudy niodc;l, "weighted molnlhly" Program target flows (as total acre- feet/month) are used for <br />scaring Co III 1vrison purposes (Atta ell ment F,). Talc weighted - monthly tcclaniclue follows an <br />ahpr�a.1c11 recommended by tine= Platte ltiver'rechnical Group (Altenllofclt, 1996), To fully <br />recognize thy; Benefits of all program flows, flows that are greater than tho weighted monthly ; <br />�l'vcrel�ye lrlil'linium targets and that are created or augiliented by the Program are also counted as <br />contributing to the scoro. <br />�Yyv <br />'Phis is not intorldccl to imply IhaL evaluations of the Proposed Program will not also include 1,11c <br />evaluation of illlpacts to peak Ilows. Because peak flows are identified as the 1liglresl priority <br />flows in the suite ofreconuuended flows established in the 1994 FWS documents, impacts on t/ <br />I)c,,1k flows must be evaluated, along witll ittnpacts relative to other flow recornniertdations (see <br />ilclln ,1iS). <br />f3)P�>tor Collservatio,rr S1rL111y 5tucly c�ylc P�c�ort). <br />'Pale; Wtltel' C0laservati0l1/S1thl11.y Ree01111aissatice Study undertaken by Boyle Engineering <br />C'ol-1)o1-atio►1 (1999), pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement (1997), evaluated altermitive:s on the <br />b „Isis of their ability to "reduce t:lrget flow shortages ". For their analysis, Boyle used what they <br />tcl-m `°FWS (July 1997) weighicd- average rrlontltly species instrearn slow recommendations" <br />("f1.lhlo 2. L of their report). 'Che target flows they used for their analysis were the S311le we�iglltcd- <br />tive oC gjecies -flows and aatuual pulse flows that are used to "score” Program alternatives <br />(item it2). Scc Attaclinitut E. <br />(4)_JV,SK',C Consideration /A.hproval ofany Proposed Water Action Plan 1'rojucts blew ctr n <br />S.QbSti LlIlinnail;).as an 'Hicinent of the Program. �J <br />WI -IiIu 1.11e wa ter-re hit od hcneftts provided by tale operation of any Program water <br />Collscrvation /supply project will be measured on the basis of redactions in shortages to species <br />flows and mimua,l pulse flows, the cv,71mition of any proposed project for inclusion in the <br />P1'02,raTl1 must also include an evaluation of impacts to Peak flows before being approved by the <br />Service and the Govcma nce Committee. Presumably, the project will be approved only if its t <br />positive ctlOcis relative to nlec;ting Program target flows (species + annual pulso flows) olltwci' I <br />any negative effects rclativo to vlaintaining peak flows. i' v <br />yaluatior� (if Whether a Project is C:oyerea,by a State or Federal future l�e�lletion Plan_ <br />fill [Aenlellttltiotl. of the three state and tho federal future depleLions plans, including subsequent <br />7 <br />