SR0084717_SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan Northeastern San Joaquin County Section 8 Groundwater Banking Authority 114 Integrated Conjunctive Use Program • South Gulch Dam and Reservoir with New Hogan Reservoir and Pardee Diversion • Alliance Canal • Lower Mokelumne River Diversions – Structural and Non-Structural The list of alternatives was further reduced by eliminating projects too contentious to implement under the current regulatory and political climate. The historic Middle Bar Dam and Reservoir alternative was eliminated from the list due to numerous adverse impacts to whitewater rafting opportunities, riparian upland areas, oak savannah habitat, and wildlife. The Devil’s Nose Dam was also eliminated from further consideration likewise due to the impacts on pristine up-county areas. The remaining alternatives were ranked based on a variety of factors weighing the benefits and likelihood of implementation. Table 8-3 shows the weighed screening criteria and evaluation results. The top five ranking alternatives will be carried forward and further explored in a detailed engineering feasibility analysis as part of the next phase of the MORE WATER Project and are described below. Table 8-3 MORE WATER Project Alternatives Screening Results Weight 0 3 3 1 2 1 5 ALTERNATIVE Cost per acre-foot Regulatory Feasibility Political Feasibility Financial Feasibility Environmental Feasibility Water Quality Benefits Achieved Sum Product Relative Ranking Duck Creek Dam - Pardee Reservoir Diversion H M M H M H H 37 1 Duck Creek Dam - Camanche Reservoir Diversion H M M H M H H 37 2 Lower Mokelumne River Diversions-Non structural L H H H H H L 35 3 Lower Mokelumne River Diversion-Structural L M H M M H M 34 4 Mokelumne River Storage System Re-operation L H M M H H L 31 5 New Hogan Reservoir Diversion with South Gulch Dam Reservoir Construction H L M M M H M 29 6 Pardee Dam and Reservoir Replacement/Enlargement M L L M L H H 28 7 Cost: Relative cost per acre-foot for each alternative. High = $$$ per af. Medium = $$ per af. Low = $ per af Regulatory Feasibility: High: Good chance for regulatory support ( i.e., regulatory agency concurrence). Medium: Moderate chance for legal support. Low: Low chance for support (i.e. regulatory agencies opposed). Political Feasibility: High: Good chance for political support ( i.e., elected officials/powerful interest groups support). Medium: Moderate chance for political support. Low: Low chance for support ( i.e. elected officials/powerful interest groups opposed). Financial Feasibility: High: High chance for financing partners outside of the Authority. Medium: Moderate chance for partners. Low: Low chance for partners outside of the Authority. Environmental Feasibility: High: Limited environmental impacts that can be mitigated to level of insignificance. Medium: Adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated. Low: Adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. Water Quality: High: No effect to downstream or County users. Medium: Potential effect to downstream users that can be mitigated. Low: Adverse effect to downstream or County users. Benefits Achieved: High: High Yield Medium: moderate yield. Low: low yield. NOTE: Sum Product = high, medium, low ranking of 3,2, and 1 respectively, multiplied by weighted factor (ranging form 1 to 5) for each screening criterion. Source: MORE WATER Project Phase I - Reconnaissance Study Summary Report, 2004