C153642 Feasibility Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Executive Summary Table S-2 Reservoir Sites Chosen for FIeld Reconnaissance 1. Elk Creek Reservoir 2. Elkhead Lake 3. Pilot Knob Reservoir 4. East Fork Reservoir 5. Williams Fork Reservoir 6. Milk Creek 7. Morrison Creek 8. Walton Creek 9. Cedar Mountain Field Reconnaissance of Potential Sites The nine reservoir sites visited are shown on Figure S-2. These nine sites were visited by an interdisciplinary study team during the week of June 3-7, 1991. The interdisciplinary study team consisted of hydrologists, engineers and terrestrial and aquatic biologists. The primary site attributes evaluated during the field reconnaissance included engineering and geotechnical factors, development cost factors, recreation potential, terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology and cultural resources. In some instances, the information characterizing the site was obtained solely from secondary sources (e.g., cultural resources) or estimated later from data gathered during the site visits (e.g., development costs). Study team members took notes and photographs of the sites and used standardized forms and checklists to insure that all relevant site attributes were evaluated. Each team member then prepared a written summary of the attributes of each site from individual disciplinary perspectives. These summaries were discussed among all members of the interdisciplinary team. Comparative Evaluation of Potential Reservoir Sites The comparative evaluation of sites was carried out using a three-step process. First, each member of the site study team was asked to prepare a matrix comparing the various sites in terms of specific detailed characteristics relevant to that team member's disciplinary area. In addition, each team member was asked to summarize these detailed evaluations in terms of one or two primary attributes. The second step of the evaluation process involved a group discussion of the individually developed evaluation matrices and the synthesis of the primary attribute evaluations into a single multi-disciplinary evaluation matrix. The objectives of this process were to develop a mutual understanding of each team member's evaluations and to produce a single evaluation matrix that would succinctly convey the relative desirability of development of each site. The third step in the evaluation process involved continued group discussion focussed on the multi-disciplinary matrix. The aim of this discussion was to develop a set of preliminary recommendations for sites to be considered in the formulation of pIoject alternatives. These preliminary recommendations were to be reviewed by TSG priOI to presentation to P AG and the public. S-IO