My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09344
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09344
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:53:01 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:35:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8407.500
Description
Platte River Basin General Publications - Missouri River General Publications
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
9/1/1974
Author
USWRC
Title
1975 Water Assessment - Guidelines for Conducting Phase II - Specific Problem Analysis - Enclosure C
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />2.~ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Sub-activity 16 - During this sub-activity priorities will be set for <br />the Level B Study Areas for which effects information was developed <br />.in Activiti"es .Two and Three. <br /> <br />In selecting participants for this sub-activity the Regional Sponsor <br />should follow the general guidelines provided in Appendix B and the <br />following specific criteria: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />At a minimum the participants <br />point of view, should include the <br />policy group. <br /> <br />from a practical <br />members of the <br /> <br />2. In addition, other members of the sponsoring <br />organization also should be permitted to participate. <br /> <br />3. Finally, to insure that the priority setting participants <br />have a regionwide flavor, participants from Group B <br />should be considered. <br /> <br />, <br />In accomplishing this sub-activity, the Council suggests that the <br />pa.rticipants first evaluate in detail the results of Activity Two which <br />indicated for each Problem Area the number and related importance <br />of the problem issue/functional Llse intersections. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Second, the participants should evaluate the results of Activity Three <br />with special attention given to: (1) the effects information for each <br />Problem Area and Level B Study Area plus (2) assumptions upon which <br />the effects informati on was based. <br /> <br />Then, based upon these evaluations, the participants shourd-be asked <br />to develop an overall opinion about the significance on the region of <br />not resolving the problems with the Level B Study Area. <br /> <br />Finally, based upon the overall opinion, the participants should be <br />asked to establish a set of priorities for the Level B Study Area. <br />Since the number of areas is relat ively small, the most straightforward <br />approach to set priorities would be successive pairwise comparisons. <br />This approach can be accomplished with the following steps: <br /> <br />Take any two areas and using whatever criteria are <br />decided upon - compare these areas to deterInine <br />which should have the highest priority. . Put that one <br />first on the list and the other one second. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />!, <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.