Laserfiche WebLink
target flows "). Peak flows (as defined above) were not incorporated into the analysis, and thus <br />do not factor into the estimated 417,000 AF /year historic shortage (Attachment D). <br />'the Proposed Pro <br />recommendations. e l u <br />The impacts that various alternatives (including the Proposed Program) would have on flows in <br />the central Platte are being "scored" for comparative purposes in the Programmatic EIS on the <br />basis of the extent to which they reduce shortages to species and annual pulse flows. This is <br />consistent with the basis for calculation of historic shortages to targets (item #1). <br />Because scoring is typically calculated on a monthly shortage (not daily shortage) basis using the <br />Opstudy model, "weighted monthly" Program target flows (as total acre - feet /month) are used for <br />scoring comparison purposes (Attachment E). The weighted - monthly technique follows an <br />approach recommended by the Platte River Technical Group (Altenhofen, 1996). To fully <br />recognize the benefits of all Program flows, flows that are greater than the weighted monthly <br />average minimum targets and that are created or augmented by the Program are also counted asCw�;� <br />contributing to the score. <br />This is not intended to imply that evaluations of the Proposed Program will not also include the <br />evaluation of impacts to peak flows. Because peak flows are identified as by <br />' f �nan essentia component o e suite of recommended flows established in the 1994 FWS <br />o� documents, impacts on peak flows must be evaluated, along with impacts relative to other flow <br />recommendations, as the Service believes peak flows are critical to the maintenance of river- <br />associated habitat for the target species (see item #8). / <br />may: Iro ✓yv- pv✓f�k. �O JSL7 <br />2v Q,'��lpw� yJ�./ T'HS e7 rttc{ �, —*eciCS <br />(3) Water Conservation Supply Study (Boyle Report). <br />The Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study undertaken by Boyle Engineering <br />Corporation (1999), pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement (1997), evaluated alternatives on the <br />basis of their ability to "reduce target flow shortages ". For their analysis, Boyle used what they <br />term "FWS (July 1997) weighted- average monthly species instream flow recommendations" <br />(Table 2.1 of their report). The target flows they used for their analysis were the same weighted - <br />averages of species flows and annual pulse flows that are used to "score" Program alternatives <br />(item #2). See Attachment E. <br />(4) FWS/GG Consideration/Approval of any Proposed Water Action Plan Projects (New or (, f <br />Substitutional) as an Element of the Program. <br />While the water - related benefits provided by the operation of any Program water <br />conservation/supply project will be measured on the basis of reductions in shortages to species Q� °�° 16, <br />flows and annual pulse flows, the evaluation of any new or substitutional proposed project for h % h <br />inclusion in the Program must also incl e an evaluation of impacts to peak flows before being <br />approved by the Service and e Gov anee Committee. Presumably, the project will be oil <br />approved only if its positive effects r ve to meeting Program target flows (species + annual �� hC t <br />bw <br />10 /C.04 oy �Y <br />Ir4f <br />0 <br />