U.S. Department of the Interior  |  Bureau of Reclamation
Contact Us | Site Map
Bureau of Reclamation Banner
This information is intended to convey the underlying concepts for Reclamation's decision processes. It is not mandatory.
See the Reclamation Manual for official Reclamation-wide requirements.

Reclamation's Decision Process Guide

Indicator Table

go through page Directions / Generic / Specific / Go On /

pretty border

navigate in the page--Directions

This helps display all of the analyses in a comprehensive, understandable way.

This table compares attributes and impacts of alternatives. A matrix table showing all indicators and alternatives provides the public and decisionmakers with a quick way to determine which alternative will do what. To do this:
  1. Identify the significant issues.
  2. Find particular indicators (a small resource or issue that can be measured) that generally reflect impacts to each resource. For example, the amount of flows at Quarry Rapids may indicate rafting quality for the entire Crystal River, or levels of Cladophora may show the relative abundance of native fish.
  3. Show why an indicator was chosen and how it interacts with the resource as a whole.
  4. Decide on the alternatives to be compared.
  5. Measure impacts to the indicators consistently under all alternatives.
  6. Identify which indicators will be used to show those issues.

pretty border

navigate in the page--Generic Table

Agree on indicators that mean something to the decision and can be tracked.

Summary of anticipated impacts on [RESOURCE] by alternative

RESOURCE

No Action

Alternative

Alternative

Indicator

Measurement Unit

Indicator

Measurement Unit

Indicator

Measurement Unit

Indicator

Measurement Unit

pretty border

navigate in the page--Specific Example

Table IV-6.--Summary of anticipated impacts on SEDIMENT by alternative

SEDIMENT

No Action

Maximum Powerplant Capacity

High Fluctuating Flow

Modified Low Fluctuating Flow

Interim Low Fluctuating Flow

Riverbed sand (percent probability of net gain)

After 20 years

After 50 years





50

41





49

36





53

45





64

73





69

76

Sandbars (feet) 1

Active width

With habitat maintenance flows

Potential height 2

With habitat maintenance flows 3



44-74

10-15



47-77

10-16



33-53

7-11



24-41

41-66

6-9

9-14



24-41

6-9

High terraces (adjacent to river)

Frequency of flood erosion



1:40



1:40



1:100



1:100



1:100

Debris fans and rapids

River's capacity to move boulders as a percentage of 1983 flood capacity



12



13



12



10



5

Lake delta (crest elevation in feet)

Lake Powell

Lake Mead



3662

1167



3662

1167



3662

1167



3662

1167



3662

1167

All values calculated for 8.23 maf annual release and include effects of flood frequency reduction, as appropriate. Effects of beach/habitat-building flows are not included (see text).

1 Active widths and potential heights do not take into account the availability of riverbed sand.

2 Difference in water-surface elevations at minimum and maximum flow.

3 Difference in water-surface elevations at minimum flow and 30,000 cfs.

pretty border

navigate in the page--Go On

GeneralAnalysis

NextIndicators

Please contact Deena Larsen 303-445-2584 with questions or comments on this material.