Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001527 <br /> <br />l <br />I <br />, <br />r <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Before the EET scenarios could be meaningfully addressed, it was <br /> <br />necessary to consider the levels of water use resulting from actions <br /> <br />other than EET development. The Upper Region States defined three <br />reference levels of water use in the Upper Region upon which the EET <br />use levels would be superimposed. These were designated as low, <br />medium, and high levels of water depletion. <br /> <br />Conceivably, nine different scenarios could have been devised from <br /> <br />f: <br />~ <br />I <br />l <br />r <br /> <br />the three levels of water depletion and the three rates of EET <br />development. However, only six alternative hydrologic scenarios <br />were analyzed from which three alternative sets of comparative <br /> <br />operations were devised. The six hydrologic scenarios consist <br /> <br />of: <br /> <br />1. LWO (Low water depletion without EET development) <br />2. LWB (Low water depletion with base level EET development) <br />3. MWO (Medium water depletion without EET development) <br />4. MWA (Medium water depletion with accelerated EET development) <br />5. HWO (High water depletion without EET development <br />6. HWA (High water depletion with accelerated EET development) <br /> <br />The three alternative sets of model operations devised from the <br /> <br />above list of scenarios are: <br /> <br />Alternative I: Scenario 2 minus Scenario 1 (LWB-LWO) <br /> <br />Alternative II: Scenario 4 minus Scenario 3 (MWA-MWO) <br /> <br />Alternative III: Scenario 6 minus Scenario 5 (HWA-HWO) <br /> <br />10 <br />