2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER III ALTERNATIVES Scope of the Study The planning process for Stage Two of the Grand Valley Unit was directed at formulating and evaluating alternatives to reduce salt load- ing from the Grand Valley Unit area. Criteria and Considerations for Plan Formulation Stage Two planning studies, which began in November 1981, were con- ducted within the framework of applicable Federal legislation and regu- lations as well as within Department of the Interior and Bureau of Recla- mation guidelines, Executive Orders, and administrative policies as they related to the Grand Valley Unit. The investigations were exempt from the now-replaced Principles and Standards for Water and Related Land Resources Planning (Water Resources Council 1973). The draft of the Sup- plement to the Definite Plan Report was submitted to the Commissioner's Office before July 8, 1983, and met the requirements for exemption from • analysis under the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (Water Re- sources Council 1982), which became effective after that date. Alternative plans for meeting the study objectives were formulated and evaluated at comparable levels to determine if the plans met the four tests of viability, briefly identified as (1) completeness, the degree to which a plan accounts for all necessary investments or other actions that would be needed to fully realize its benefits; (2) effec- tiveness, how the plan alleviates the identified problems and achieves the specified objectives; (3) efficiency, the extent to which an alter- native is the most cost-effective means of alleviating the identified problems and realizing specified objectives. For salinity control proj- ects such as the Grand Valley Unit, the cost-effectiveness criterion-- the annual cost required to achieve a 1-ton reduction in salt loading to the Colorado River--is of primary importance in comparing and evaluating alternative plans and plan increments; and (4) acceptability, how work- able and viable an alternative plan is; that is, is it accepted by the public and compatible with existing laws, regulations, and public poli- cies. Alternative plans that met all four tests were subjected to more detailed economic, social, and environmental analyses. Early in Stage Two planning, problems, constraints, and opportu- nities were identified that formed the basis for elements to be con- sidered in plan formulation. The Stage Two study area was defined as the entire irrigated portion of the Grand Valley outside of the Stage One area, excluding the Redlands area and the Orchard Mesa Power Canal and laterals. The Redlands area was not included because most of its 16