Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />decreases in the salinity level in the runoff mechanisms have relaxed in <br />some quarters both in and out of the Service the sense of urgency associated <br />with the program. At the same time, others see an increasingly imminent <br />emergency. <br /> <br />.... <br />C..ll <br />fv <br />f-" <br /> <br />In all these areas mentioned, there is need for dialogue and increased <br />understsnding of the resources available and the priorities, concerns, and <br />constraints of the involved parties. This process should culminate in <br />clearly defined priorities within the Service and the definition of what <br />resources are associated with those priorities. (Resource availability <br />from throughout the Service should be considered.) Once defined these <br />priorities and allocations should be firmly communicated to all involved <br />inside and outside the Service. <br /> <br />Options: <br /> <br />A. As internal priorities are set or confirmed, communicate them clesrly <br />to the Forum and other interested entities so that their expectations will <br />commensurate with our priorities. <br /> <br />B. Simply force, by directive f~om the Commissioner, the organizational <br />machinery that now exists, e.g., Overview Committee, Permanent Management <br />Committee (PMC) , CRWQO, and the appropriate Regional Directors, to function <br />more effectively with regard to priority setting and existing directives. <br /> <br />C. Make the priorities explicit by defining goals such as salt loading <br />rates and time objectives. <br /> <br />D. Reassess Servicewide resources and priorities and move underutilized <br />people either permanently or on detail to areaS of higher priority and <br />greater resource need. This assumes a relatively high priority for the <br />SCPo <br /> <br />E. Obtain greater resource capability through contracting out more of the <br />work. <br /> <br />Recommendations: <br /> <br />Options B, D, and E. <br /> <br />Action Entity: Overvlew Committee <br /> <br />ACCEPTABLE COST-EFFECTIVENESS <br /> <br />Priority: High <br /> <br />There are many interpretations of the concept of "cost-effectiveness" <br />criteria for salinity control. Some view cost-effectiveness as a relative <br />least-cost approach with no fixed cost ceiling, while others see cost-effec- <br />tiveness limited by a loose comparison to identified benefits. Still <br />