Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Evaluate Shortlisted Alternatives <br />Evaluations were developed for each of the alternative categories, <br />which include analyses of specific and/or representative examples of <br />alternatives in the short list (see Table 1.3). Draft evaluations were <br />submitted to the WMC in May 1999. Projects were evaluated <br />throughout the 19 reaches defined for the Platte River study area (see <br />Figure 1.2). The effects on streamflows in the immediate area of each <br />project as well as the critical habitat area, net reductions to target flow <br />shortages, and costs were evaluated. Associated physical, <br />legal/institutional, economic, social, and environmental issues were <br />also addressed. Based upon these evaluations each project was <br />assigned a composite score between zero and 25. <br />C. Summary <br />This Study identified and analyzed 186 specific and/or representative <br />water supply projects with 61 additional variations on those projects. <br />Of these, there are 15 projects capable of reducing shortages to target <br />flows by an average of at least 10,000 ac -ft/yr if the resulting flows <br />can be protected from downstream diversions. There are also an <br />additional 35 projects (or project variations) capable of reducing <br />shortages to target flows by 5,000 to 10,000 ac -ft /yr on average if the <br />resulting flows can be protected from downstream diversions. <br />There are 16 specific and/or representative projects (or variations) for <br />which the estimated unit costs are less than $1,000 per ac -ft of average <br />shortage reduction. These same projects would be implemented at <br />costs considerably more than $1,000 per ac -ft if the Program water is <br />not protected from downstream diversion. <br />Potential alternative scores ranged from zero to 25 based on five <br />general criteria and 31 subcriteria. The scores for all 186 projects fell <br />in the 14 to 19 range. Several of the groundwater projects earned <br />scores at the upper end of this range and several of the incentive based <br />reductions to agricultural water use, systems integration and <br />management projects, and new reservoirs were at the lower end of the <br />range. <br />Third party impacts associated with alternatives that were not deferred <br />were identified and discussed. Third party impacts are primarily a <br />result of hydrologic and economic impacts of an alternative. Third <br />1 -5 <br />