Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.~ <br />.... <br />l.:~) <br />~) <br />o <br /> <br />PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION <br /> <br />Components recommended for further consideration after the screening <br />process were combined into six alternative development plans to meet projected <br />future .in-basin water demands. The six plans were formulated with the intent <br />of pre~enting a broad spectrum of development possibilities which would meet <br />the target objectives to some degree. These alternative plans are defined in <br />general terms as follows: <br /> <br />Alternative No. 1 - a group of 17 recreational components <br />Alternative No.2 - three storage reservoirs, one each in the Ohio Creek, <br />Tomichi Creek and Cochetopa Creek sub-basins. <br />Alternative No.3 - a combination of alternatives 1 and 2. <br />Alternative No.4 - three storage reservoirs of Alternative 2 combined <br />with ten recreation components selected from <br />Alternative No.1. <br />Alternative No. 5 - storage reservoirs on Tomichi Creek and Ohio Creek <br />combined with ten recreation components selected from <br />Alternative No.1. <br />Alternative No.6 - one storage reservoir on Tomichi Creek combined with <br />ten recreation components selected from Alternative <br />No. 1. <br /> <br />These six alternatives are more fully defined in Tables 5.4 through 5.8. <br />These alternatives were evaluated, screened and ranked based primarily on the <br />fo 11 owi ng factors: abil i ty to meet target objectives; envi ronmenta 1 impacts; <br />potential benefits; institutional/social impacts; and cost. The relative rank <br />assigned to each alternative plan is as presented below: <br /> <br />5-4 <br /> <br />, <br />, <br />