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 />and to assess, on a preliminary level, the viability of each alternative. <br />Us i ng the fi ndi ngs of thi s Study, cri tical aspects of the alternat i ve plans <br />can be selected for further investigation, including additional cycles of <br />screening, public evaluation, and reformulation. Then, if the results warrant <br />it, a more detailed study can be carried out to determi ne the economi c and <br />technical feasibility of the preferred plants). <br /> <br />Although delays arising from such factors as political controversy, <br />financial obstacles, environmental considerations, or bureaucratic procedures <br />are not entirely avoidable, the approach outl ined above helps to streaml ine <br />the process. It defers expens i ve detail ed envi ronmenta 1 eva 1 uat ions, <br />including certain requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) <br />process ,and design work until there is some degree of confidence that a <br />component is technically, economically, and politically feasible. A key goal <br />in this approach is to balance water resources development with environmental <br />protection and recreational benefits. <br /> <br />1.4 STUDY PROCESS <br /> <br />This Phase I Feasibility Study is composed of 16 tasks, defined in Table <br />1.1 and shown as they interrelate in Figure 1.3. These tasks comprise more <br />than 45 subtasks and cover the technical, public involvement, and management <br />aspects of the Study. <br /> <br />The Study has been performed under the direction of the Authority, <br />assisted by an Advisory Committee (AC) composed of 21 individuals representing <br />a wide variety of interest groups, and by a Technical Steering Committee <br />(TSC) . <br /> <br />,-j ~ : <br /> <br />1-7 <br /> <br />Ii 10003138 <br />