Laserfiche WebLink
<br />co <br /> <br />'.J <br /> <br />M <br />C\l <br /> <br />CHAPTER I II <br /> <br />BASIS FOR ANALYSES <br /> <br />The following chapter presents a range of plans which might be <br />implemented to meet all or part of the projected water needs in the proj- <br />ect area. To avoid repetitious discussions throughout the report, items <br />generally applicable to all plans are discussed in this chapter. <br /> <br />The project area is divided into two distinct drainage areas by the <br />Danforth Hills and other natural features as described in Chapter I. For <br />purposes of project planning and discussion, these areas are referred to <br />as the Milk Creek Segment and White River Segment. The Milk Creek Seg- <br />ment, consisting simply of the Milk Creek drainage area, is relatively <br />small and is not further divided. The White River Segment, on the other <br />hand, consists of several smaller but distinct areas. For example, there <br />are three areas mentioned in irrigation discussions--Little Beaver, Flag <br />Creek, and Josephine Basin. All probable oil shale development would be <br />in the White River Segment but outside the irrigation areas. Potential <br />coal developments would be in both the Milk Creek Segment and the Little <br />Beaver area, and all municipal and domestic water delivery now being <br />considered is in the Little Beaver area. These areas are all shown on <br />the General Map in the front of this report. <br /> <br />Planning Method <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />In accordance with the Principles and Standards for Planning Water <br />and Related Land Resources established on a National basis in 1973, the <br />studies described in this report have been based on multiobjective <br />planning (MOP) procedures. Both economic development and environmental <br />enhancement were recognized as important goals in plan formulation, <br />although it was considered necessary to present only those plans that <br />are justified in terms of monetary benefits and costs. A wide range of <br />public viewpoints in the planning process was assured by the formation <br />of an interdisciplinary planning team under the leadership of the Bureau <br />of Reclamation. Public involvement has been encouraged and such input <br />has been used. <br /> <br />When the present Yellow Jacket investigation was initiated in January <br />1975, a public meeting was held in Meeker to inform all interested parties, <br />including the local people. The project's history was reviewed, the <br />needs and resources of the area were discussed, and planning procedures <br />were outlined. An MOP team was subsequently organized" has functioned <br />in the course of the study, and is expected to continue until completion. <br />The people on the team represent a number of Federal, State, and local <br /> <br />20 <br />