smalers
commented
5 years ago Here is my feedback, which can be addressed by Kristin.
- I think we should leave for now. We pulled the language from a USGS publication. Let's see what other feedback we get.
- I agree to remove the hydraulics paragraph, which seems out of place now that the other content in the story is in place.
- Hopefully this is better now that we have added the popup to link to the live site. We don't control the content so have to live with the quality of the image and original. Perhaps also take a screen shot of a subset of the full diagram, focusing on something relevant that is more readable and still gets the point across about "system".
- I noticed that the navigation tool uses "Canal" instead of "Irrigation District". Change to the latter to be consistent. As for Bob's suggestion, how about just change the order of the sentences a bit so that the first sentence starts with Prewitt Reservoir is... junior right... etc. Then talk about the operations involving North Sterling etc.
- Similar to straight line diagram, we link to the actual application. Maybe for readability, take another screenshot that has the left 1/2 of the tool in the image.
- I have also seen the scroll behavior at times. However, it seems to happen when I scroll in a section and then come back to it later (the scroll in the section is remembered). I have also seen when the image on a page is too large and causes a layout issue. In this case we have resized the image to be smaller. If necessary the scale for viewing needs to be adjusted by using the Ctrl-minus. Keep an eye on this but don't do anything right now.
- I agree the title is a bit confusing. The goal was to explain interactions once readers had seen each sector's demands discussed. I suggest that we leave in the same location but change to "Meeting Demands through Water Management and Administration". We don't really talk about planning on this section but that is somewhat covered elsewhere and also in the Entities story.
- The snowpack page is in the storage section because we want to make the point that snow is a natural and important form of storage. I suggest that a sentence/words be added up front similar to "snowpack in Colorado is impacted by annual weather conditions and in turn impacts streamflow runoff and groundwater recharge" and "there is great concern that climate change will change the amount, timing, and spatial extent of snowpack" (link to the climate change section).
- I agree that we can mention some other entities, even better if they have a web page describing the effort.
- Agree that we can mention other entities if that is easy to find information for. We mentioned the two big ones in the basin.
- We reworked the Source Water Route Framework into two new sections on watersheds and streams at the front of the presentation.
kswaim
The following are comments from Bob Peters of Denver Water. OWF may address these issues once all feedback has been received from the committee.
1) Because this is at the beginning, the basic hydrology narrative could be shortened. I wouldn’t dive this deep too quickly. 2) I’d suggest removing the “Hydraulics” paragraph. 3) The straight line diagram might be too detailed/small to read and does not visually convey much info, except maybe that water administration is complex. (See point below on Water Demands) 4) On the N Sterling series…this is a really good story map. The only quibble is that on the Prewitt page, it begins with talking about N Sterling Reservoir. I’d move that verbiage to the first frame. 5) Like the straight line, the graphic on the Groundwater page is too detailed/small to be of much use. 6) I noticed on a few instances that using my scroll wheel caused the text from two or more pages to show up overlapped. Had to re-click on a story button on the right to reset. 7) On Water Demands, I was confused… I expected to read about water conservation/efficiency, not water rights administration. I would suggest putting water rights administration info further up where the straight line diagram is. 8) I’d suggest putting the Snow Pack page further up toward the basic hydrology discussion. 9) On aquifer storage page, I appreciate you putting in the DW stuff, but I would add some info about utilities that are actually doing this. DW is only just evaluating it right now. Centennial has been doing it successfully for 20 years. Castle Rock and East Cherry Creek are piloting, Consolidated Mutual has done it with mixed success. Donala has successfully piloted. Co Springs has piloted. 10) On the Transmountain diversion page, you might mention some of the entities besides DW and Northern that rely on imported water. 11) I am not sure I understand how the Source Water Routing Framework information fits in. Seems more like specific GIS info that is background detail used in modeling. Maybe remove this?