Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001756 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> B. Green River, Colorado, in Dinosaur National Monument <br /> 1. Similar effort. <br /> 2. Similar effort. <br /> 3. Similar effort. <br /> 4. Similar effort. <br /> C. Green River, Colorado, in Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge <br /> 1. Similar effort. <br /> 2. Similar effort. <br /> 3. Similar effort. <br /> 4. Similar effort. <br />VI. Description of Alternatives and Summary of Analysis <br /> <br />The MOP process involves detailed analysEs of a large data bank. It <br />is not easily grasped by those not closely involved in the process. <br />It must be presented in a manner which will develop an understanding <br />of the process by a layman leading to comprehension of what is <br />being presented. The real difficulty is presenting all important <br />information while retaining clarity in the overall presentation. <br />This may be done as follows: <br /> <br />A. lntroduction - After briefly describing the authority, purpose, <br />and scope of the process, the introduction should explain to the <br />layman the nature of the presentation which follows, the need <br />for selecting different years of analysis and future scenarios <br />within which to view those analyses. MOP terms should be <br />. defined and then major assumptions, including, of course, why <br />the particular years of analysis, future scenarios, and <br />alternatives were the ones analyzed, given rationale. It <br />should then be noted that other, more minor, assumptions and <br />more detailed information displays can be found in the appendix. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />B. No Action Alternative - Existing authorities, project proposals, <br />plans, or programs which are believed to describe this alternative <br />should be briefly explained in a few paragraphs. Major assump- <br />tions for including or excluding major project proposals, etc., <br />will be given. Gross impacts expected will be defined. <br /> <br />8 <br />