Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Degree to which an alternative provides opportunities for the Participants to influence the <br /> <br />outcome of the compliance process. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Estimate cost and time to develop an alternative. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Estimate cost and time to implement an alternative. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Precedent. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Authority. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Degree to which an alternative accommodates current and future hydropower and water <br />project operational flexibility. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ability of an alternative to provide certainty during plan development. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ability to develop a comprehensive, coordinated conservation strategy. <br /> <br />In the analysis, each alternative was evaluated according to the degree to which, or the way in <br />which, it met each criterion. To facilitate comparison of the 153 discrete evaluations <br />(9 alternatives x 17 criteria), a matrix table was devised (see following page) using a simple <br />rating system based on a "lowest-Iow-moderate-high-highest" scale. Where that scale was <br />inappropriate (under the cost- and time-related criteria), dollar amounts and years were used <br />instead. <br /> <br />FINAL REPORT <br /> <br />December 20, 1994 <br />Page 8 <br />