My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC07347
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
19000-19999
>
WSPC07347
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:10:30 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:25:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.39.C
Description
Colorado River Threatened-Endangered - RIPRAP - CFOPS - Water Availability
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/2000
Author
Brown and Caldwell
Title
Phase 1 Coordinated Facilities Water Availability Study for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River - 09-01-00
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />002977 <br /> <br />2.2.3 Evaluation and Screening Criteria <br /> <br />Evaluation and screening criteria are listed in the alternative evaluation matrix (see Table 1). <br />The matrix lists issues and concerns for each alternative and was used by the Executive <br />Committee and the consultant team in screening alternatives for further study in Phase 2. The <br />issues and concerns listed in the evaluation matrix will be the focus of further investigation in <br />Phase 2 where the effects and concerns will be quantified. <br /> <br />Participants in this Phase 1 investigation indicated the importance of three criteria for evaluating <br />and screening alternatives: <br /> <br />. Reduction in existing projects' yields is not to occur, <br />. Existing projects' operations and maintenance costs should not be increased, and <br />. Existing projects operational flexibility, and/or reliability are not to be affected. <br /> <br />These criteria are specifically incorporated in the alternative evaluation matrix and are further <br />discussed below. <br /> <br />1~1 <br /> <br />Analysis will be completed in Phase 2 to quantify the following effects on existing projects <br />resulting from implementation of any of the alternatives to supply the average annual 20,000 <br />acre-feet: (1) reduction in existing projects' yields, (2) increases in existing projects' operations <br />and maintenance costs and (3) changes in existing projects' operational flexibility and/or <br />reliability. The purpose of this analysis will be to provide data to facilitate evaluation of the <br />individual alternatives. If the effects on existing projects' yields, operations and maintenance <br />costs and/or project flexibility prove to be significant, the Executive Committee can eliminate the <br />specific alternatives from further consideration. <br /> <br />2.2.3.1 <br /> <br />Impact on Existing Projects' Yields <br /> <br />"",I <br />!!I <br /> <br />The term "yield" is used in this investigation to indicate the historic yield of a project under <br />historic hydrologic conditions and does not refer to the decreed yield of the project's water right. <br />This definition of yield is used because it is consistent with the planned Phase 2 analysis. In <br />Phase 2 of this investigation, extensive analysis will be made to determine the effect, if any, of <br />implementing the alternatives described in this report on existing projects' yields. These effects <br />will be determined by comparing hydrologic model simulations with and without the proposed <br />alternatives. These simulations will use the baseline hydrology as described in Section 2.3.2. <br /> <br />Preliminary estimates of expected effects of alternatives on existing projects' yields have been <br />made in Phase I and are included in the evaluation and screening criteria (see Table I). <br /> <br />As indicated above, Phase 2 investigations will focus on quantifying the effects on existing <br />project yields from implementation of the alternatives for supplying the average 20,000 acre-feet <br />per year. <br /> <br />p:\data\gen\Ocwcb\ I8J 33\report\phase-l \chap-2.doe <br /> <br />2-3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.