Binder 15. Screening criteria / miscellaneous report input / phase II POS

Screening Criteria Misc. Report Input Phase II POS

/.

1-'Z

\

..

I¾

CVI.L

~

;OU-,-.s

~

~

~

-

~

r

--OJ}.t

c.

1-thd'

f,1 1-.v,,-7

~

f~

eri#

C

~hi

r

'1

1"4f

~

;;,·s~

vi£,;,·)

+o

kl½v- n ~ d

p,cA/f:,,li·~·~

1v

r-l-v.4;

AA'~

r~";_.,'j,'i

1

qc~·J-\t) ~('~ ( vf1,-,,,e. fv/v~ ,l.-,bJ ~ ,,.,of- (-1..

~A/.-(J..)

7. ~ f v oY"(.. q<'t.M--?

r

-vi

flAA

V ~ Ip..,,.. p(P

( pr-,vPu..

~ t , . . , + 1

»A.-UD,.,

~jh-1' f'-'v' J., ~

J

S~.uri.,.,1-:,

bdrw-~ ~ . J w

i.J,,t,

s-1~ .•

1-,.t/;;

J.

s-~r~

'3,.

/Mfr-Oy't r-H/U~ ~

Fri

c,,i/

,·t

;ej f':>ev.ef,'J---

ep-r

r~

J','b,'l;~

oJ

C,jC'~r~ P)C ~ SJ...,

d

~ v,

'h · ~

L.? t.) d-,

~ ~b~r~

(ri'v~·,;,v...

f ~ ) /

it"1rnv-.e-

u--u

of

'H.J.- s - ~ ( b<JO\_ + /r ~ I

f

~

~ ) ;

~1'1 ~ ~~

"f

~ CA·t,,·¼'.,,

f.,_,,-

~ f .s (

~?J"O"'"lh,1.

0-V-

; n ~

'f1--t-

,.,-,.,.1-11/~~

0 / P o . ~ ~

(h~~

/W

J ~t'{~~-->:, ) . . .

o'YI.-(o,fv.i~.,.

lr1~4;

f,j~

~

-~

v ~ ~AJ,l,.

i

~

I~ h~1

Ju'~~

01 Cc.LA-, ~ J.-t_ of~ e~

o/

A 7 ~~ ~

+

~

~

r}~s

~

~ ~

r

--

-=,j-~ct

.

~

r

ve..

.>o

c,¢ , ~

~

R..,-,{,.

-fJv.

~

f,.

~/)~~ ~

J"ilt-

~

~

~

tui'v¥..s

c,-,v,J..,,,.,..

~.;,

~

r ~

d,,

1

"'

f

0

~~

~

(

T~~ ~

I

~

+-

Pt...w-(

JA,v

1/J

~

t" V..(A-

J

c,vv,o/_,

~.,.,;"';;

.

r

tv-L n,,ie~f l-,J;°J1..

'f1v<_

c ; l M ~ - ~ ly-1

~

~

7{) ~ t v - 1 1 1 f1~ WJ_

~:f/C-J?r

i

'/4J-

~~'~

~ M

;"'

'1fv7

'-I

lo

COLORADO WATER RESOURCES

&

POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Logan Tower Bldg. - Suite 620. 1580 Logan Street. Denver. Colorado 80203 ,... ~ 3/830-1550 June 9, 1988 ~ · 1 • · Mr. Andy Tczap HOR 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80203

1

·

('

,

.-_\

~ l· JU "-:-· --- N 9

1

r:

::

e

I .. ' - '

v_

C

,

::!"'.

\~c.. ·, .

~ri-;-

__

RE: Cooments on Task Memo No. 2 fran B. McDonald

Dear Andy:

The following are B. McDonald's verbal coornents on the subject memo. His written canments will be coming in a few days. Bob's general reaction was that tHe memo is a real good start and provides a good over a 11 approach to the screening process. He said that this study is atypical of the nonnal process and that having fisheries enhancements as the primary objective makes the process particularly tough. He feels that it would be fine to send the memo out in its present fonn. Bob's specific corrments are as follows:

'

~

• Paragraph 1.2, p. 1-1 - Hydropower is study objective but is not listed as /

a target objective nor is hydro included in the screening process. This needs to be explained. (See also item #3 on p. 1-2.)

• Need to define 11

factors11

and ranking criteria on Table 4.2, p. 4-5. For

---example, expand "meets target objectives11

- list them, i.e, Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 from p. 2-1 per discussion on p. 2-2.

• Define Technical Reliability on Table 4.2./

• Evaluation team has to understand what is meant by terms on Table 4.2. For example, water quality, wildlife, etc .• Need to have definition for /

"Detrimental to Present Condition11

in terms of bounds on levels of impacts. Also need to define low, moderate, and high. Also severe problems .

• Add quantification to Table 4.5 following plan formulation, that is, when you get down to 4 or 5 alternatives.

• Tab le 4. 1 has a 11 environmenta 1 criteria. What about technica 1 criteria, for example, size of projects?

• P. 2-3, items #1 and #5 - "Severa 1 locations" may result in expectations /

Mr. Andy Tczap June 9, 1988 Page two

• P. 3-2 - 4th bullet - should be "Economic/Social" Factors to be consistent.

• Liked Table 4.3 - good.

• P. 4-7 - Table 4.4 - How do we incorporate Table 4.4 into Table 4.5? Possibly add section on enhancements for recreation. Need to exp lain how the two tables would be canbined, that is, how recreational components affect screening of alternate plans.

I'll have the office forward Bob's written comments as soon as they are received. I'll be calling in next week so if you have any questions, please leave

a message at the office

BD/gdd

Sincerely,

Blaine Dwyer, P.E. Project Manager

... MEMORANDUM

--

-

--

-

--

---

---

---

-July 27.1988 I 1J: A . I c l ,Jr-> ., B . U i J Hr 11::, e t· q

RE: Gunnison Study: Screening of Structural Components

Thi,,; Oh''mo pr nv.i.dl·"",; mv qenr-:!r al. c·1)111111en L.:::. ,)n l h(-1 _{~-::;,_ t} cun inn ,:ht. ... cL,; r,i ,,vi,.:h.,id c1t ·11-J,.: r1.dv l'! Plan runnul.aLi.on hlC-1-' i r1'-) i i"J Gunr,.L•,:•1:. :::;ppcil~.ic comml!1·1ts ,'.Hl-,• ~1.-_. indi.c:,_1t.Pd un tl-H? flliJ r [. lc'•J ·UP

Cl.,Pi1c•~:.; r:,I" the fu1n1:.: .. !,!umpr·ic;;=d de1tc1 usi::id iri the:,, t·est n t l hi,'

lfl>,"f)!f!U i,.; f11_t 1-hco! I lit: dc1msit•·:.'_ b~::'C'dl \"<C• I hr,t·i::., <'H n i :it ·r1t i f i ,_,,:j t.J1;.1 t r,1.1r1n i ·'.~1:,r, '' ·: f oux r10 t ,..,d nn ; :-,,,. l"nnn Pc-!::,J 'I• I;.' I ,·11.,i i nq:

:-11• id,:;,nti.fi.Pd M&r ,.:;hot t.ai.:irs,·=,;_ .i.f cumr•ont:>nt•,; could I:,,,, I.\Sed tis ::.,ub,:,t.:it.l.\t:c:; lrw t.he Cit.v

prdr:!n·l .i.,_,1 •·.tnt·i:~C\C n :.--:;1c,rv0i.r:;;;. thi':., ·,hc111},:l

~nd in the nc11·1atlv0.

Arjdlt.ion~l l0tal Pe~c-Pnt 1\c.t·r:.,·,; Acr 1,.-aqe Jnc t·e,'1'',(·"'

'-,u::.,!:•l.1:'mPntdl .t,,,~ri. t•Jat.Pr- ::;upp'Jy · ,, 1pp iv I D i-!, .. ,1A, it· r j qa t eel Ac-n=•d<.JP

6,nnn ( l 14. (_l_/1) J. .. i::tt:fl'. r,_,fi .:; .. 1~ i '.,;k /\· .. ,·:~~:·.''.:::-;men t. ,,_1p,~;r,;:11·", to t,;::-. b,:1·':;c,d '..':~n 1.,-" I y r1r1 "qu(, l.oc1i.c

h,cl "did(:.,''. l,,.lh;::1'1" i:'tl:)01.ll ut~1·;r· fac:t()r 1!·1,·11". c nuld ,,::;i.qnif.i., ,.1r,tty ; 111r.,c11. t p1·d i FJC t. r.o•.,t ::..;'.·· .l i- l:h..-n:::- at·r-, nu uth1::•r

,-1·· ·11[ ·1 ,. ' "("'(·,· [c·,-11'c· {"'· - -1--lt0

1°("ll'"••·" ,.,, .4.1..,.,,e

.. _.. j { 1 . ( .J 1,) t-.:.·. ;1 ·~: l ) .... ~ . •• \, • I 1, .. .. . ... _ I.:.:., ..

f,H·to; ·;;;, thF: liLJt,~

--l. "t3c,ulu,:1i.c:. h;1,:";11.J" comments i r, th,c> uuaJ.i.fv ir,,:i F-:em,=i,--k~~; ::.;uctinr,

--~,·" ,;.11 d i:,,., ,.: har,qE-id t ,~ 1 rn i n I., ,qy . T ·1- j I

t,.1ithnul ic··Umin.:::tti.nq

l. u dr.JVE)t·:::;:e qr!O Loq.i c cunc::U. t ier: ,,r • i mi l,:tt

lS 1, .. .-t l: t h,::it th,-~ p1·0.iec t:. , .. ·,:.m nut bci b1.1.iJ. l

1 h,.:·., ha1.,:11 .. d, the lGrm 111.:.1y t·,p ,rppropt·.i.a L-E

~-5 .. l<F)l .i:Jbi. ii ty dPP•·",:-tt :c.- l.o 1:.,e ba::-:;ed or1ly nn hyd t·o](Ji:1ic con<ji.t.ion::::: ,·1r1d c::1 •,ul::, j,,1_ t.:i.ve iudqment n:><.:J,:1r·d.i.nq c1r1nua1 inflcn,, vs . roserv(i.i.r •: ,-:;i:1,)1 .. j_ t './ 1..lt" p r·E~C onc:Pp t 1. one,:; t" ecia r d.i nq dc::i::=.,i. t" db J l--' t· (~~S,l:;?t"'VO:i. t· S 1. 7 t:1_• J ·1· 1 h j "=-· i.s the i:in !_y I Rct ur beinq con:::,ick,!t'"ed, c:hcinqo "ncl:i.at>i l i ty"

.I

..

/ t)l.t :· i<~l \if,• j:.1 t t~ \t i t._1tJ·_. j \l (::,_,:ti ,.·lltf.'

be r:::,xp L:'1 in,,:.sr:!.

/. t,dd "Potent.i .. -:tlly" r·,,- "j·r,·'··.):.;ibJ.y" Lo "llet.1·.i.mPr,Ltl

Condi LLc1n" het1di.nq.

:;::. DP.l.Pte "but·. Mar1:,,:,:•.-1l·dp" 1-t-rJtn thn h(;;,:v;ljnq "!::>OflH·.1 ll.iff.i.c-ultv t,ut

M,:1naqis~'td.c·".

OJ l<PPldc.E> tin.it t"'.,,:;j 1",·1·1 Coc;t of Finn Yi1.,!d" 1<.iith "Annual

WI

. .

E: There are two commonly used defini t ions.

a. "all wild mammals, birds, fish, amphi:>ians, reptiles, ;nollusks,

and crustaceans" This is the most acceptable definition.

b. "undomesticated animals, often hunted or at least noLiced by

man, and therefore consisting mainly of birds, mammals, and a few lower vertebrates and insects"

FISHERY: "any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gil ls, and a streamlined body" ur "the industry or occupacion or sport of catching, processing, or selling fish"

For purposes of this study, I would use the terms "terrestrial

wildl ife" which would mean "all wild mammals, birds, amphibians, and

reptiles"; and the term "f ishery" meaning "fish, their habitat, and

the sport of catching f ish"

BOTANY: "branch of bi.ology deal ing with plants ' As a substitute you

might better use "flora" meaning all plant life associated with a

given habi tat or geographic area"

CULTURAL RESOURCES : "any building, site, district, st ructure or

object significant in history, architecture, or archeology"

•

JRN

1

3

~

as

2

1

3

5

HDR

-

OMRHR

F'02 p,,t!.ft;..

w,..:k(/f)

f,-cpreL b_{7 13} .w? 6vflr,..fid

.I

Gunnison Ba•

in

Study EVALUATION/SCREENING CRITERIA

Approach

Criteria are needed to e

•

tabli•h a baai• for locating and

evaluating individual plan element

•

,

both structural and

non-structural, to allow the formulation ot two alternative

development plans. Accordingly, these criteria should

addr•••=

l. Where ahould individual plan element• be located?

2. How ettectively doea this element meet currant and

future need•?

3. Should thi

•

plan element be included in the final

plan?

Plan

element

•

will be evaluated with reapeot to four major

categori•• which are required by the Plan ot Study (PCS).

Th••• catagori•• include:

l. Technical

2. Economic

3. Environmental

•· In

•

titutional

Planning i

•

done in th1• •tudy at the reconnaia

•

ance level,

implying that study reaulta will identity option

•

for tutura

development and will not attempt to evaluate the technical,

economic, or environmental feasibility of each plan element.

Therefore, criteria should also be simplistic and in

character with the level of technical and economic detail

being

prepared.

It i• underatood that the client wiahaa to••• criteria which

allow the quantitative evaluation ot each element, avoiding

the use of qualitative measures auch aa "high", "moderate",

or ''low", Thia sugge1ta that criteria should allow tor the

ranking of individual plan elements as well aa ranking of

groups of elements. In so doing, numerical methods can be

more readily applied, and th• reapactive merits and demerits

of each plan element can be more readily discerned, This

will allow a direct comparison of the trade-o!!a between

element

•.

However, it will be impoa

•

ible to avoid

qualitative or subjective evaluations of environmental or

inaitutional criteria.

critaria

tor locating plan alamanta

Criteria tor locating plan element

•

are not

•

pacifically

required in the POS, However, auch criteria would be helpful

-JR

N

13 '88 21 35 HDR-OMRHR

in order to avoid prolonged delay• in tormulating an aeoeptable aet of development plan

•,

Possible criteria

includa:

P03

l. Doe• the element addr••• a specified, quantifiable demand (including current and future)?

2. Ia the element located on a stream of known environmental sensitivity?

3. Do other alternative

•

exist which would equally aatiaty the current or projected need in areas which are enviornmentally lesa sensitive?

suag11ted

technical criteria

Technical criteria should be directed towards how etticiently the plan element addresses specitic study area problem and needs or achieves overall study goals, Criteria are needed for only structural plan elements. Non-structural plan elements would not be evaluated with respect to technical criteria because these element• do not involve actual construction. Suggested criteria tor evaluation of structural plan elements are as follows:

l. Location of plan element: This would include such !actors aa distance from population centers,

availability of construction and post-development

acceaa, and distance to transmission line

•.

!lament would be evaluated according to the ranking ot each factor. The tirst two would require a

eUbjeetiva ranking

ot

poor, acceptable, and good, whereas the third tactor would be rated according to miles (higher mileage is less desirable),

2, Average annual flow at element location: Thia criterion will indicate the maximum potential development at the site. Element would be

evaluated aeeording to the ranking of this factor, with higher flows being more deaireable,

3. Total reservoir storage: Thia criterion will be used to indicate the ettectiveneaa ot the solution,

and would ba uaed aa a ratio of storage to annual downstream demand. Element

•

would be evaluated according to the ranking

ot

this factor, with a

higher storage and atorage ratio being more daaireabla.

4. E•timated annual power and energy: Thi• criterion would be used to evaluate elements including

hydropower as a development feature. Elements would be ranked according to estimated annual

-JRN

13

'

88 21:35 HDR-OMRHR

P04

energy and eatimatad peak capacity. In both caaea,

higher ia more deaireabla.

5. U••

ot

exiating teaturea: Thi• eriterion would be

uaed a• an indieator or maintaining development

within areas which are now experience human use.

Elements which incorporate existing atructural

features would be more desireable than elements

Which do not. Evaluation would be on a "yea" or

"no" baaia,

sugge1tad econornic

criteria

Eeonomie criteria ahould be addr••••d towards how et!iciently

the element banetita the study area and the State

ot

Colorado. Posaible criteria include:

1, Total element coatt Development coat• would be

determined according to categoriea

ot

capital

eoata, mitigation coat

•,

and annual O&M coata.

Each element would then be ranked according to

theae !actors, with the higher eoat being leas

deaireable,

2, Total element benetit: Annual direct development

benetita would be determined tor each element in

the categoriea ot agricultural, M&I, power and

recreation. Each element would then be ranked

according to th••• factor•, with the higher benefit

being more daair•a~la,

3. Internal rate or return: The internal rate ot

return would be computed for each element.

Evaluation would be baaed upon a ranking of

elements, with a higher return being more

deaireable,

4. Oirect revenue potential: Thi

•

crit•rion would be

used to determine tha potential for local

aaaaaamanta to be made which would reduce the coat

to the state,

or

tor the potential for revenue

streams rrom the sale of power and energy which

would also reduce coat

•,

Elamenta would be

evaluated according to a ranking of the potential

annual revenue stream, with the higher annual value

being more deaireable,

5, Unit development eoat1: Ratio• or coat per

acre-foot of atoraga or co

•

t par kilowatt would be

computed tor each element. Evaluation would be

based upon a ranking of values, with the lower

value being more de•ireable.

-JAN 1

3 '8

8 21:

3

7

HDR-OMAHA

P05

suggeated tnvironm1nta1

erit1ria

Environmental criteria should ba addreaaed towards how well

the element blends with or enhances the existing environment.

Possible criteria include:

1, Mil•• ot 1tream benetit•d: Indicator

•

auch as water quality improvement, improved stream access, and stabilized stream tlowa would be used as

tactora within this criterion. Elements would be

ranked according to each tactor, with the higher value being more desireable.

2. Miles ot stream impacted: Indicators used

in

criterion #lot this category would also be used to

evaluate potential impacts. However, in this case,

the lower value would be more daaireable.

3. Potential tor mitigation: Thia subjective

criterion would

•imply

meaaure th• potential for mitigation

ot

possible impacta. Evaluation would be

on

a

"Y••"

or "no" baaia.

4. Area, in acre• , included within project boundary: Thia criterion would be used

aa

a

subjective

meaaure ot potential impacts to terre•trial

ecology. Elements would be ranked according to area, with the higher area being lea• daaireable. ,. U•• ot existing structural reaturea: Thia

criterion would be used a• a subjeetive means of evaluating the potential environmental

disturbances. Evaluation would be on a

"Y••"

or "no"

baai

a.

suqqaatad institutional criteria

Inatituti0nal criteria ahould ba addreaaed toward• tho••

factors which will delay or prevent the implementation of the

element. In all caaea, the evaluation would ba based upon

the subjective opinion of "potential delaya11 _{or "probable} rejection". Possible criteria include:

1. Known presence ot endangered species

2. Known pra•enc•

ot

cultural resource sites 3. Known presence of wetlands

4. Use

or

federally-owned facilities

!. Required changes in •tat• law

-1 4

'88

G• 2 • .::i;:;::

,._, • •-• '-I HDR-Dr11=1Hl=I P

n

-

·)

....

cunnison Baain Study

Taak 7

SEL!CT PLAN EVALUATION/ SCREENING CRITERIA

Topical outline

7,1 Purpoae of section

Establish and describe criteria for:

Locating projeet elements

Comparing project elements

Formulating alternative plans

Establish processes for applying criteria

7.2 Types of structural element• under consideration

Introduction

Small storage reservoirs (less than 5,000 acre-feet)

stabilizing streamflow

Enhance recreational opportunities

Moderate storage reservoirs (5,000 • 20,000 acre-!eet)

Regulate streamtlow

Provide municipal & industrial demands

Provide agricultural demands

Large storage reservoirs (greater than 20,000 acre-teet)

Regulate streamtlow

Provide municipal & industrial demand•

Provide agricultural demands

Provide storage tor out-of-basin sales

Diversion & water conveyance facilities

Enhanced streamflow opportunities

Provide flow for in-basin demands

7.3 Types of non-structural elements under consia•ration

Introduction

Improved water management

Reduce water demand

tnhancad water management data base

Institutional measures

Basin-wide water resources organization

Expanded role of existing agencies

7.4 Criteria for locating structual plan element• Purpose

Technical criteria

Geotechnical hazard•

Presence ot current or future need

Environmental criteria

Irreplaceable resource

National or state park or wilderness area

Known environmental sensitivity

Endangered species

Method of application

JAN 14

'

88 02:35 HDR-OMRHR

7.5 Criteria for comparing structural plan elements Introduction

Technical criteria Purpose

Suggeated criteria

Location ot plan element Average annual !low

Total reservoir storage relative to demands Estimated annual power and energy

Use of existing features Method ot application

Economic criteria Purpoa•

Suggeeted criteria

Total element cost Total element benefit

Internal rate of return

Direct revenue potential Unit development costs

Method ot application Environmental criteria

Purpose

suggested criteria

Miles of atream benefited Milas ot stream impacted ~otential for mitigation

Area

within project boundary Use ot existing feature

•

Method of application

Institutional criteria

Purpoae

Suggested criteria

Known presence of endangered species

Known presance of cultural resources sites

Known presence of wetlands

Use of federally-owned facilities Required changes of state laws Method 0f application

7.6 Criteria for evaluating non-structural elements Introduction and purpose

Suggested criteria

Etfectiven••• in reducing demands Institutional impediments

Coat of implementing relative to potential benefit Method of application

7,7 Criteria for formulating alternative plans Introduction and purposa

Suggeetad criteria

Technical criteria

Provides in-basin current and projected needs Provides potential for out-of-basin sales

JRN 14 '88 02:36

HDR-OMRHR

Economic criteria

Total plan benetits

Total plan coata

Internal rate

ot

return

!nvironmental criteria

Improved quality ot environment

Minimize overall impacts

Coat ot mitigation Institutional criteria Plan flexibility Public acceptance Evaluation procedures Page 111 F' 04

,_P~rOJ~ec_t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ I C_om-'-p_ute_d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,_s_ub"-jec_1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_J D_ate _ _ _ _ _ J~s_h1 _ _ _ _ ~ I O_f _ _ _ _

•

01,,-,ul,;

•

•

•

•

R✓i~

₇

11.J1'h./

.4c.u:.rl'

W)

I

/.t-w

~~ /3,:, 4,,,/,n}

w

~~,_,

I

fl~r-kil

c.,_,,,,/J / ro11 ,._If • 11~r,,c ~~s

/

11,~,,;_;

~,4

f r~.re.rve (/"',tut .-4!'~

PI-

fJ.u ,·t-i

fl-o

vitb.

-fer /ti { I

l'V~d

J

f0~rP

f'o-A;r 00/J

r-.-1~.J

(,JJ<..r ,=~<.!"

sM

~¥1"'0

rek./

h/nJ,;_;

~rl•;•,j,< ~I , i : •'t C.

I:.;

Ao,'J..

Vn:u~11~4 £~v1r~,,,.,,.,,~,.~/ ..Z-,.,,,;::1.u./s,

D,./fn'/,.,,/c

r-~;

1,:.J,;

j

I

~k ..

hi/

~.e£-

i

7,{,-,

~i~.,r/

.ft.

iJJJ,· ...

f)

,,,,.,,·~

.fo~

/c.-/

,:,{

<k~e-1/

Ii, ~-.h',,,k,,. ~../ .f,'j_'v4

/(t9/l/1<.1-VG ,Co~ c'40(

CR 17"E,l I l9 { £v lfJ.v/4 no,v)

-

~

·

. .., _}

ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA

Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Study

I . PURPOSE It

To develope the evaluation criteria for the ·~reliminary comparison and ranking of alternative structural and nori-structural components

according to environmental factors. This can be used for an initial

comparison of plans, but is not of sufficient ·~etail to select plans from an environmental standpoint.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

The following is a list of environmental factors to be included in

criteria. Three environmental factors are considered critical,

"red flag", elements and should be used to elimino.te alternatives. These 3 are: 1) construction in an established wilderness area; 2) impoundments on the Gunnison River between Crystal Dam and the

North Fork confluence; and 3) construction in the Black Canyon of

the Gunnison National Monument.

FACTORS:

Critical Factors

Wilderness area construction-yes/no Gunnison River impoundment-yes/no

National Monument construction-yes/no Land Use Factors

Compatibility w/ city-county-state land use regs-yes/no

Compatibility w/ Federal land management plans-yes/no

Developed recreation areas-number

Irrigated land-acres

Developed wildlife areas-acres

Construction in wilderness study area-yes/no

Wildlife Factors

Winter range-acres

Production areas(calving, fawning, ect)-acres

Wetlands(waterfowl production)-acres

Endangered species-degree of effect

Fisherv Factors

'

~

~

~

-

Nat"ur

a

l

lakes-acres

Natural lakes with winterkill-acres

Impoundments-acres

Stream habitat improvements-miles

Streamf lows-miles of change

Water qual ity-degree change

Recreation Factors

Stream fishery access-miles

Boat access-number of locations

Whitewater boating flows-miles of change

Camping-number of sites

Camping-number of units

Picnicking-number of :;ites

Trails-number Trails-miles

.

.

··

-

·

Strcamtlows/riparian areas-degree change

Structural impacts-degree change

Ecological Factors -~

Overall ecological changes on natural systems-degree change

Cultural Resource Factors

National Register Sites affecte~-degree of effect

Mitigation Factors

Potential to be mitigated-degree

III. The following evaluation units can be used to determine

qualitative descriptors for the effect of each alternative

on environmental factors. The units can be altered by use of

a trade-off type analysis, such as MATS.

Factor Units

Critical concerns

Sand use

Wilderness area constructiun-Gunnison River impoundment- ..

National Monument

construction-Compatibility w/ land use

regs-Compatibility w/ Fed land

use-Developed recreation

areas-Irrigated

land-Developed wildlife area-Construction in wild. S. A.--~iildlif e Winter range-Production areas- Wetlands-Endangered species-?isheries Natural lakes

Natural lakes w/winterkill

Impoundments

Stream habitat improvement

Streamflows

Water quality

yesC-100), no(O)

yes(-100), no(O) yes(-100), no(O)

yes(l) , no(-5), unknown(O)

yes(l), no(-5) , unknown(O)

each gain(3), each loss(-3) each 100 nc. gaint2), each

100 ac. loss(-2)

each 25 ac. gain(2), each 25 ac. loss(-2)

yes(-25), no(O)

each 50 ac. gain(2), each

50 ac. loss(-2)

each 50 ac. gain(2), each 50 ac. loss(-2)

each 25 ac. gain(4), each

25 ac. loss(-4)

no effect(O), effect on

individual plant or animal

(-25, effect on local

population(-10), effect

on species(-100)

each 5 acre gain or loss

(2, -2)

each 5 acre improvement or loss(2,-2)

each 10 acre gain or loss

(1,-1)

each mile improvement or

loss(2,-2)

each mile improvement or

loss(2,-2)

each mile of State Class increase

Boating access

Whitewater boating flows

Camping, number of sites

Camping, number of units Picnicking, number of sites Trails, number Trails, miles Aesthetics Streamflows/riparian areas Structural impacts ==co logical

Overall ecological changes on natural system

~ultural Resources

National Register sites

ga.!.neu \ S, . .:~jor 1-i ve!'."; ~, tributary)

each location gain or loss

(1,-1)

each 5 mi. gain or loss

(1,-1)

each site gain or loss

(4, -4) ·,

each 10 ... :unit gain or loss

(2,-2)

each site gain or loss

(1,-1)

each trail gain or loss

(4,-4 for improved, 3,-3

for unimproved)

each 4 mile gain or loss

(1, -1)

each major change on large

area(5,-5) ; each major

change on small area(2,-2);

each minor change on small

area(l,-1)

each major change on large

area(5,-5); each major

change on small area(2,-2);

each minor change on ~mall

area(l,-1)

each major change on large

area(6,-6) , small area(3,-3);

minor change(l,-1)

each major irreversible

change (4,-4); adverse

effects that are compensated

(-2) ; protection or other

long-term gain in knowledge

from site(2)

IV. SIGNIFICANCE: Each alternative plan or plan component will be

cated, and positive numbers and negative numbers tabulated separately.

Jome alternatives will have high beneficial numbers positive numbers)

Jr vise-versa. ~ome alternatives may have all high or all low. For

.. ~xarnple an alternative with both a high positive number and a "high"

negative number could indicate that the alternative has both very high

~nvironmental benefits and losses.

The following scale can help determine the scale of significance: 60 or greater 31 to 59 16 to 30 1 to 15 0 -1 to -15 -16 to -30 -31 to -59 -60 or

..

V. EXAMPLE:. The following table is an example of how two hypothetical

alternatives might be evaluated using these criteria.

Factor Alternative A :::· Alternative B .

Critical concerns

Wilderness construction 0

Gunnison River impoundment O

National Monument construction O

Land use

Wildlife

Compatibility w/ land use Compatibility w/ Fed land use Developed recreation area Irrigated land

Developed wildlife area Construction in wild SA Winter range Production areas Wetlands Endangered species Fisheries Natural lakes

Natural lakes w/ winterkill Impoundments

Stream habitat improvement Streamflows

Water quality ·eat ion

Stream fishery access

Boating access Whitewater boating Camping, number of Camping, number of Picnicking, number Trails, number Trails, miles flows sites units of sites Aesthetics Streamflows/riparian Structural impacts ::::cological

Overall ecological changes

Cultural Resources

National Register sites

1 1 3 -2 4 0 0 2 8 -2 0 0 0 20 0 0 5 0 0 8 6 4 3 3 2 1 0 2

'

. 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 8 2 12 14 0 9 1 0 4 2 3 0 0 2 -3 -2 -2

-

-

---

-

---Sum of Positive Numbers Sum of Negative Numbers

73

-4

65 -13

-LAND USE FACTORS:

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

SOCIAL FACTORS:

GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS:

INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS:

CRITERIA FOR PRELIMINARY SCREENING

NATIONAL PARK; STATE PARK; WILDERNESS AREA

ENDANGERED SPECIES

POPULATION CENTERS; IRREPLACEABLE RESOURCE

ACTIVE FAULTS; POTENTIAL MAJOR LANDSLIDES

REQUIRES CHANGES WHICH MAKE IMPLEMENTATAION

~

ir

11f

---CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION/SCREENING OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS RELATED TO MEETING M, I AND AG DEMANDS

TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:

RANKING

FACTOR POOR MODERATE

ABILITY TO MEET IN-BASIN DEMANDS < 70% 70%-90%

~ HYDRO POTENTIAL (INSTALLED CAPACITY) <10 MW 10-25 MW /RELOCAT IO_NS--.

ROADS > 10

_-

MI. 5-10 MI.

POWER LINES > 10 MI. 5-10 MI.

FAMILIES >25 10-25

STREAM INUNDATION (EXISTING FISHERY)

>

5 MI. 2-.5 MI.

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY /l.>s,,A C SEVERE MODERATE

AQUATIC BIOLOGY fJitJJw;<--

jt,,J"f,J

_{SEVERE MODERATE} BOTANICAL RESOURCES rt,,,,((,'#., _{SEVERE MODERATE}

CULTURAL RESOURCES u l I) i SEVERE _MODERATE RECREATIONAL RESOURCES H<-ti1t,,,,..,, _{SEVERE MODERATE}

POTENTIAL FOR RECREATION ENH~f~ENT LOW MODERATE POTENTIAL FOR MITIGATION .vie C~ I/ _{LOW MODERATE}

GOOD

--

,

,

> 90% >25 MW < 5 MI. I < 5 MI.

)D

< 10 / < 2 MI. LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH HIGH

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION/SCREENING OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS RELATED TO MEETING M, I ANO AG DEMANDS

(CONTINUED)

ECONOMIC FACTORS:

TOTAL COST

UNIT CAPITAL COST OF FIRM YIELD

UNIT CAPITAL COST OF HYDRO

UNIT CAPITAL COST OF PUMPED STORAGE FINANCIAL FACTORS: $

-$

_{- - - -}

PER AF $ PER KW $ PER KW

FIRM YIELD AVAILABLE FOR OUT-OF-BASIN SALES

PUMPED STORAGE POTENTIAL

$

_{- - - -}

AF

$ MW

OTHER FACTORS:

INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

(IDENTIFY, DESCRIBE, ASSESS

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ANO ASSIGN

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION/SCREENING/OR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS FOR STREAMFLOW ~ANCEMENT

TECHNICAL ANO ENVIRONMENTAL FACT~S:

\

X'

RANKING

FACTOR _{POOR MODERATE GOOD}

UTILITY RELOCATION

I

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY

I

AQUATIC BIOLOGY

I

BOTANICAL RESOURCES

I

CULTURAL RESOURCES

I

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

I

POTENTIAL FOR MITIGATION

ECONOMIC FACTORS:

TOTAL COST

UNIT CAPITAL COST OF FIRM YIELD

OTHER FACTORS:

I NSTI TUT! ONAL

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

1

SEVERE MODERATE LOW

\

\ SEVERE MODERATE LOW

~VERE MODERATE LOW

SE~RE MODERATE LOW

'

SEVERE MODERATE LOW

SEVERE MODERATE LOW

LOW MODERATE HIGH

$ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

$ _ __ _ __ __ _ PE AF

(IDENTIFY, DESCRIBE, ASSESS

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AND ASSIGN

,

J

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION/SCREENING OF NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

FACTOR

EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING DEMAND COST OF IMPLEMENTATION

INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

RANKING

POOR MODERATE GOOD

I - 3?.

1% 25-i~ 3%

500 $/AF 200-500 $/AF 200 $/AF

(IDENTIFY, DESCRIBE, ASSESS MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AND ASSIGN RATING OF POOR, MODERATE OR GOOD)

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION/SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

RANKING

EVALUATION FACTOR POOR MODERATE GOOD

GENERAL FACTORS

MEETS PROJECT OBJECTIVES < 75% 75%-90% 90-10P%, ~

-

-

_),J.

MEETS IN-BASIN DEMANDS < 75% 75-99% 100%

TECHNICAL FACTORS

FIRM YIELD FOR IN-BASIN DEMANDS

CONVENTIONAL HYDRO POTENTIAL

<

10 MW 10-25 MW

>

_25. MW ~

-ROAD RELOCATION (MILES)

_'

'\

5.,.~

HIGHWAYS > 15 10-15 ~10 ... 1

SECONDARY >25 15-25 < 15

OTHER UTILITY RELOCATION >15 10-15 ,10 _/ I/ _J

FAMILY RELOCATION LOW MODERATE HIGH _~

RELIABILITY LOW MODERATE HIGH

STREAM INUNDATION (EXISTING FISHERY) <10 5-10 >5

-)

'

ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIAL FACTORS

C"'

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY SEVERE MODERATE LOW

AQUATIC BIOLOGY SEVERE MODERATE LOW

"I,,

l.,1,1 WATER QUALITY SEVERE MODERATE LOW

BOTANICAL RESOURCES SEVERE MODERATE LOW CULTURAL RESOURCES SEVERE MODERATE LOW RECREATIONAL RESOURCES _{SEVERE MODERATE LOW}

POTENTIAL FOR ENHANCED RECREATION LOW MODERATE HIGH ~

"'f

12-

,+

LAND USE SEVERE MODERATE LOW

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE LOW MODERATE HIGH

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION/SCREENING

OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

(co

ntinued

)

FINANCIAL

/ECONO

MIC FACTORS:

UNIT

CAPITAL COST PER

FIRM

YIELD

UNIT CAPITAL COST OF

HYDRO

UNIT CAPITAL COST OF

PUMPED

S

T

ORAGE

(VI

0

0

PUMPED STORAGE POTENTIAL

_J.'ft-!t'>

f?

U

.

NIT

CA

PITAL COST

OF

PUMPED

STO

RAGE

INSTITU

T

IONAL

FACTORS:

ABILITY TO

FINANCE: $ $ $ $ $

(ID

ENTIFY,

DESCRIBE,

ASS

ESS

MAGNITUDE OF

IMP

ACT AND

PER AF

PER KW

PER

KW

MW

PER KW

ASSIGN RATING OF POOR, MODERATE,

OR GOOD)

'

. .

,

DA

T

.

·-

C. _____________ -····-··· ... .. .

PHASE

I

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR

UPPER

GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE

BASIN

TASK

MEMORAND

UM

NO. 2

••

SELECT

PLAN EVALUATION

/

SCREENING

CRITERIA

Submitted to:

.

~

,

J

u

1,'\ :, ~ -- 1Q;)~

. .

-Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority

1580 Logan Street, Suite 620 Denver, Colorado 80203

Prepared by:

HOR Engineering, Inc.

303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80203

In

association with:

WBLA,

Inc.

Woodward Clyde Consultants

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

C.U. Center for Economic Analysis

June 1988

~

~

/ / ~ " " c =-::,

y:;

cl

~

~ ) - ~ ~ /

'

.

. , Table of Contents List of Tables 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES 1.3 TASK DESCRIPTION

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Page 1 2 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-2 2.0 TARGET OBJECTIVES 2-1 2.1 GENERAL 2-1

2.2 TARGET OBJECTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE PLANS 2-1

2.3 TARGET OBJECTIVES FOR PLAN COMPONENTS 2-1

2.3.1 Structural Components 2-2

2.3.2 Non-Structural Components 2-2

2.3.2.1 Water Conservation Measures 2-2

2.3.2.2 Water Management Measures 2-2 2.3.2.3 Recreation Components 2-3 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCREENING PROCESS 2-1

3.1 GENERAL 2-1

3.2 DEFINITION OF COMPONENTS 2-1

3.2.1 Non-Structural Components 2-1 3.2.2 Structural Components 2-2 3.2.3 Factors to be Considered 2-2 4.0 SCREENING CRITERIA 4-1 4.1 STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 4-1 4.1.1 General 4-1 4.1.2 Preliminary Screening 4-1 4.1.3 Comparative Screening 4-1 4.2 NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 4-2

4.2.1 Water Supply and Water Demand Management Measures 4-2

4.2.2 Recreation Improvement Components 4-2

4.3 ALTERNATIVE PLANS 4-3

5.0 APPLICATION OF CRITERIA

5.1 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS

5.2 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

-1-5-1

5-1

No. 1.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 LIST OF TABLES Title Page

Work Tasks for Phase I Feasibility Study 1-3

Non-Structural Components to be Considered in the Study Process 3-3

Structural Components to be Considered in the Study Process 3-4

Preliminary Screening Criteria for Structural Components 4-4

Comparative Screening Criteria for Structural Components 4-5

Screening Criteria for Water Supply/Demand Management

Non-Structural Components 4-6

Screening Criteria for Recreation Components 4-7

Screening Criteria for Alternative Plans 4-8 Comparison of Alternative Plans 5-2

-2-1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1

G

E

NERA

L

The Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study consists of 16 work tasks.

These tasks are listed in Table 1.1. This Task Memorandum No. 2 presents the

results of Task No. 7, "Select Plan Evaluation/Screening Criteria.''

The purpose of the Task Memoranda is to summarize the work performed, to

document any preliminary conclusions that have been reached, and to provide a

mechanism for obtaining feedback from interested parties regarding the specific

work tasks discussed in each memorandum. A brief Summary Report and a

comprehensive Final Report will be prepared prior to completion of the study

and will summarize and finalize the information contained in all of the Project

Task Memorandum. Therefore, this Task Memorandum should be considered a draft

or preliminary document in that subsequent developments may affect the material

contained herein.

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES

This Phase I Feasibility Study is being conducted to identify financially

feasible, environmentally sound, water resource management and development

alternatives within the study area. A primary goal of the study will be to

improve fisheries and other water-based recreational opportunities and to provide greater public access for these activities. Other important goals are to provide for future agricultural and M&I demands and to provide additional flood protection within the study area. Given the apparent inability of

recreational and agricultural water users to pay for development projects,

other sources of revenue including hydropower generation and potential out-of

-basin water sales will be considered as components of an overall plan.

The key activities of the study are as follows:

1. Identify in-basin opportunities for environmental and recreational

enhancements.

2. Examine the physical and legal availability of water

under present conditions as well as with future

demands (including water for strearnflow enhancement).

1-1

in the basin in-basin water /

3. Identify and evaluate potential water and hydropower development

components in the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Basins.

4. Determine annual water yield, cost and technical feasibility of both

structural and non-structural alternatives.

5. Prepare a preliminary assessment of the economic and financial

feasibility of water development alternatives.

6. Examine the technical and financial feasibility of using hydropower

and potential out-of-basin sale of water (that is in excess of in

-basin demands) to fund in-basin water dev~lopment components of the

recommended plan(s).

The location and physical characteristics of the study area are shown in

Figure 1.1, Basin Map. 1.3

T

ASK D

E

SCR

IPT

ION

sdi,

The objective of this task is to prepare a criteria which

_,,,

can be used to

-evaluate and screen alternative project components~ alternative project

plans that will be formulated by combining individual omponents. .:=:>/c:.

Task No. Task No. 1 Task No. 2 Task No. 3 Task No. 4 Task No. 5 Task No. 6 Task No. 7 Task No. 8 Task No. 9 Task No. 10 Task No. 11 Task No. 12 Task No. 13 Task No. 14 Task No. 15 Task No. 16 TABLE 1.1

Work Tasks for Phase I Feas1b111ty Study

Task Description

Collect and Review Existing Data

Describe Existing Water Resource Systems and Recreation

Facilities

Assess Basin Hydrology

Project Demands

Identify and Evaluate Recreational and Environmental Plan

Components

Compare Supply with Forecasted Demands and Instream Flows Select Plan Evaluation/Screening Criteria

Non-Structural Plan Components

Structural Plan Components

Formulate and Evaluate Alternate Plan Combinations and Financing Strategies

Identify Environmental Impacts and Potential Solutions Selection of Preferred Plan(s)

Report Preparation

Meetings and Public Involvement Program Prepare POS for Phase II Feasibility Study

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation {Optional)

Study Beal" Stre Coun Roed Slor-Nun I s

1

l

0

l

I

I

u.s

.

State ~ , I• ,.,Lu -

-Count COLOIU.O0 WATlll ,.uou,.C(S ... o ,owlll O(Y(LOPW(NT AUTl•C,.ITY GUHNISOH-UHCOMP>.HGRE STUDY BASIN MAP "°"' 1waas111ucrvat cw c- ,_ · - - - ,,__ .... ___ ..., •• ....,. .... ·- -· ... ...___.._ .... '""' ... ___.. c..-~ April 1988 FIGURE: 1. 1

,

• J

2.0 TARG

E

T

OBJEC

T

IVES

2.1

GENERAL

To be effective, any screening criteria must take into objectives to be met by the elements or plans being screened.

objective of this study can be stated as follows:

account the

The over a 11

Prepare a water resources management plan for the study area that will result in economic benefits to the area, preserve the critical aspects of the area's environment, and preserve the area's water supply to meet the local

demand which can be reasonably expected to develop in the forseeable future.

2

.

2

TARGET OBJECTIVES

F

OR

ALTERNATIVE PLANS

In order to accomplish the broad objective stated above, the recommended management plan should have the capability to meet the following specific

target objectives:

7

{y

Satisfy projected future municipal 1 nd ' industrial water demands

within the study area. 2.

5.

Provide high quality recreation opportunities that will result in increased tourism and related economic benefits to the study area and the State of Colorado.

Assure that an adequate water supply will be available to support the

recreational opportunities proposed as a result of meeting objective

2 above.

Satisfy projected future agricultural water demands in the study

area.

Provide a mechanism for financing the proposed water management plan.

6. Preserve the critical aspects of the environment to the maximum

practicable extent consistent with the other target objectives.

2.3

TARGET OBJECT

IV

ES F

O

R PLAN

C

OMPONENTS

It should

section apply to

be noted that th~rget

the reconmended~ that

I

5

~

2-1

objectives stated in the previous

,

;

I

• J

,

the study and not necessarily to plan components. Individual plan components

will be identified to meet one or more of the target objectives but the

alternative project plans should meet the maximum number of target objectives

to the maximum practicable degree.

_.

_{~. Ju}

' I :"'-

-I~,,~+

I.I.~ i ... ,k-l-1:.:~~-1 _.G..C ~

..,i.,s

c, ~

.,_c...,,

-"'~.

rl L-f ~ "' . J ~

-It. t<-~'d ,af,...,k "" . -1

.,#-i ..

> ~

2.3.l Structural Components _{D J t-f,. ,., &.+ >fl "' l., )~'• ('}

11,f

µ+;!,1--..1

f . ~

1

1 * 1

-..,' cJ,.#~ I.

Structural components will be identified to satisfy one or more of the

project target objectives stated above. For example, multi-purpose reservoirs

will be identified to meet specific agricultural, M&I, and recreational needs; hydroelectric components will be identified to provide a potential mechanism

for financing; and so forth. Structural components, therefore, do not have a

sub-set of target objectives but will be identified to meet objectives 1, 3, 4

and 5 for alternative plans.

2.3.2 Non-Structural Components

Non-structural components are grouped into the following categories:

water conservation measures, water management measures, and recreation-related

components.

2.3.2.1 Water Conservation Measures

The target objective for these components is:

Reduce present consumptive use in the study area by a significant

amount, more than ten percent in aggregate.

2.3.2.2 Water Management

Measure

s

The target objective for these components is:

Meet present or projected water demands by some practical means which

will eliminate or defer the need to construct new~

facilities.

5J,

L..,L

J

7

fL71,;..,I

ii

J,,c

Jc.,;1,.~

,.,.,rf 2-2

-1

• j

2.3.2.3

Recreation

Compon

ents

The target objective for alternative plans related to recreation

(Number 2) is broad in nature and therefore the following subset of target

objectives for use ~ ecreation components has been established:

?

(.,,..)

.

~/(

<--J? /

c..L_ :

1. Provide a "trophy fishery" in several locations in the study area.

2. Provide improve~; ~t~existing high quality fisheries located within private lands.

3. Provide campgrounds and trails at locations where they will

accommodate water-based recreation users.

4. Provide improved whitewater boating.

5. Improve waterfowl habita't at several locations in the study area.

6. Distribute recreation

although concentration where opportunities are

improvements throughout the study area, of improvements may occur in certain areas

the greatest •

3.0

D

ESCRIPTION

OF THE SCREENING PROCESS

/_y·

7

[lo~~~

3.1 GENERAL _I

lot..J

~

._,..e. 1

r

rc.a-K,.-/~.

During the study process, structural and non\structural components will be identified to meet the various study target objectives. Some components will

be the only mechanism identified to meet a specifi objective or water demand.

Others will be one of a group of alternatives which a e~ same objective

or demand. The alternative components will b _screened t~elect the most attractive component to meet each identified nd and/or target objective.

The screened list of components will be reviewed and selectively combined into

alternative plans which can meet the study's target objectives. After the

alternative plans have been formulated, they will be screened in order to rank them and arrive at a plan or plans which will be recommended for further, in -(\ depth study.

The screening process for components will consi.st of a two-step process in most cases. The first step will be a preliminary screening designed to

eliminate components that do not meet target objectives to a reasonable degree or which result in an impact which is serious and would be difficult to mitigate. The final screening will compare each component to allow a relative

ranking to be prepared.

Alternative plans will be screened only in a comparative manner. Since

all components used to formulate plans will have passed the preliminary elimination screening, a first-phase elimination screening of plans will not be

required.

3.2 DEFINITION OF COMPONENTS ~ ( / 9--./.

3.2.1 Non-Structural Components

Non-structural components are defined as falling into one of the following

categories: conservation measures which reduce water demand; water

management techniques such as the transfer of a water right which allows a

water demand to be met without the need to construct physical facilities;

and recreation improvement components. It should be noted that a

non-structural component such as ditch lining (conservation) or a campground

(recreation) will require some minor construction,~nd therefore eoald be

7

~..:...=.::::::=~+-~~::..;.c..:::..;.;....:c.=,

components which

Table 3.1 presents a list of non-structural

in this study. 3.2.2 Structural Components

Structural comtonents are physical facilities which can meet a water

demand or a target objective. Structural components are configured to meet ~ , p a l , industr~recreational and agricultural water demands. Table 3.2

1+-

I

presents a list of structural components that will be considered in this study.

---be Considered

r-(

3.2/ Factors to

c,.... ~; )~ t · The general

as follows:

factors that will be considered in the screening process are

o Ability to meet Target Objectives o Technical Factors o Environmental Factors o Economic Factors o Institutional Factors ' • .i 3-2

TABLE 3.1

Non-Structural Components to be Considered in the Study

P

roc

ess

Phreatophyte Control

Ditch Lining and On-Farm Efficiency Improvements

Water Rights Exchange Agreements

Drought Insurance

Conjunctive Use of Ground and Surface Water

Modification of Reservoir Operation

Municipal Distribution Efficiency Improvements

Evaporation Supression

Municipal and Industrial Water Conservation

M&I Water Rate Modification

Universal Metering

Water_Rights Purchases and Change of Use

Acquisition of Access to Streams

Fishing Regulations Fish Stocking

Improvement of Streambank Vegetation

Streambed Modifications Campgrounds

Hiking Trails and Trailheads

Parking Areas and Access Roads

Waterfowl Nesting Structures

Waterfowl Ponds

TABLE 3,2

Structural Components to be Considered in the Study

Process

Storage Reservoirs

River Diversion Structures

Canals and Appurtenant Structures

Wellfields, Pump Stations and Pipelines

,.

(

4

.0

SCREEN

ING CRIT

ERIA

4.1

STRUCTURAL

COMPONENTS

l

c-J

fa_;f

I __/ - / _ -

/vv

)

4 .1.1 Gener a 1

1 t.-,,..J J,.

-o

f

a-ol

p J , ·c

e

/4._

.

A preliminary map study will be performed to identify a list of alternative structural components. The list will then be subjected to a

preliminary screening aimed at eliminating component~ based on factors which would indicat: that the component will be in conflict with the basic goals of the study or which may prevent the component from\qualifying for permits

required for construction. Components that survive the preliminary screening will then be evaluated on a comparative basis in order to select the most attractive co~ponent to meet target objectives and projected demands. The components which rank highest in the comparative screening will be used in formulating project plans.

4

.

1.2

Preliminary Screening

The preliminary screening criteria is presented in Table

4.1.

This level of screening is based on certain critical factors and will result in

elimination or retention of a component for a further comparative evaluation.

Certain critical factors identified in Table

4.1

for use in this study

?

such as Inundation of Gold Medal Trout Stream could possibly be mitigated and therefore would not necessarily be considered a critical factor in some other

prefeasibility study. It is considered a critical factor in the context ~ ---1"~

this study because inundation of a prime fishery resource is contrary to, O'

primary goal)of the study (improve fisheries) and the target objectives of the study.

4.1.3

Comparative Screening

Table 4.2 presents the comparative evaluation screening criteria.

Application of the criteria will result in elimination of components which are

considered significantly less desirable when compared to other components that

can serve the same function and a comparative ranking of components which are

not eliminated. The comparative screening criteria presented in Table 4.2

includes the following categories: technical, environmental, institutional/

~ c A :

,

.

I

!

.

.

.

social and economic. The orientation of the criteria is to define the following characteristics of a proposed component.

o Degree to which target objectives are met o Efficiency as measured by economic factors o Environmental impacts

o Institutional/social constraints o Cost

The potential for mitigation of environmental impacts is noticeably missing from the criteria. This was done in order to weight the process in favor of selection of the alternative which w\11 result in the least environmental impact. Identification of mitigation measures will be performed for the final recommended plan(s).

4.2 NON-STRUCTURAL

COMPONENTS

For the purpose of screening, non-structural components are grouped into two categories as follows: actions that would reduce water demand or increase efficiency of water use without constructing major physical features; and recreation improvement components.

4.2.l Water Supply and Water Demand Management Measures

t,-)LJ

_;, ,:

_f

I

7

The screening of non-structural components in he water supply/demand management group will consist of a one-step el· ,nation process. Components which survive the screening will be considered in the plan formulation process. The screening criteria for these components is presented in Table 4.3. The justification for a one-step elimination screening of these components rather than a two-step process is that all such measures that meet the elimination criteria should be implemented because they are much less costly and

environmentally damaging than structural measures. Thus, a comparative screening is unnecessary for these components at this level of study.

4.2.2 Recreation Improvement

Components

It is anticipated that a certain number of the recreation improvement opportunities identified in the study will be included in the recorrmended plan

or plans and that after implementation of the plan, development of the other

-,.

\

I

_

l

wi11 continue in the study area as funds become available. For that reason, these components will also be screened using a one-step approach but it wi11 consist of a comparative screening and no component wi11 be eliminated from

consideration. Rather, the highest ranked components wi11 be used to formulate alternative plans and the remainder will provide a ranked source list of

components for future consideration. The comparative screening criteria for these components is shown on Table 4.4.

4.3 ALTERNATIVE

PLANS

Alternative plans will be formulated by combining structural and non-structural components into project plans which meet all or some portion of the project objectives. These alternative plans will be evaluated and screened in order to identify the recommended plan(s). The screening criteria for comparing and evaluating alternative plans is presented in Table 4.5.