Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />A.LTF.R.NATIVJ<;S <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />w <br />...... <br />(,.0 <br />--J <br /> <br />Plans W"ere fonnulated at 8: 1 e.....e I of detl'li 1 and accuracy suffi- <br />cient to permit .....al id comparisons and W"ere subject~d to four test'J of <br />.....iability--completeness. effecti.....eness. efficiency, and acceptl!lbility. <br />Completeness is the extent to W"hich a plan pr0.....ides and accounts for all <br />necessary investments or other I!Ictions to ensure the realization of the <br />planned effects. Effectiveness is the extent tQ which a plan alleviates <br />the specified problem and achieves the de9ired result9. F.fficiency is <br />the extent to which a pLtn is the most cost-effective means of allli!vi- <br />ating the specified proble~s and realizing the specified opportunities. <br />Acceptability is the workability and viability of plans with respect to <br />acceptl!lnce by the public and compatibility with existing laws, reglJla- <br />tions. and public policies. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Four accounts specified in the Principles and Guidelines are used <br />to display and evaluate information on the effects of viable plans--the <br />National Economic Development (NED). the Environmentl!ll Quality (EQ). the <br />Regional Economic Development (RED). and the Social Hfects (SE) Ac- <br />counts. Each account describes particular aspects of anticipated effects <br />of the viable alternatives on the environment. The NED Account measures <br />changes in the economic value of the national output of goods and serv- <br />ices, while the RED Account m~asures local impacts in monetl'lry and non- <br />monetary values. The F.:Q Account m~asures impacts on the environment in <br />nonmonet...ry values and the SE Account measures impactq on the custO'l1S <br />and w3y of life of residents of the study area. <br /> <br />Alt",:rnatives were evaluat",:<'i at .Il1nuilry 1983 price levels. ~e in- <br />terest rate us~d was 8 5/8 percent. the projected rate for planning re- <br />ports completed in fiscal year 1986. The project <'iesig"t lif",: for all <br />alt~rnatives was 100 yearq, W"it~ project features estimat@<'i to he rp- <br />placed as needed. <br /> <br />Plan S@l@ction Criteria <br /> <br />The criteria of the Principles and GuidelineN stipulate that an <br />a~ency must select the alternative which maximize" net positive NED <br />benefits as the recommended plan or receive an official f'Kception <br />allowing formulation of plans to meet other needs; however. in ilccord- <br />ance with Public laW" QS-S69. cost effectiven~ss. or the annual C0St of <br />reducing the salinity of the Colorado River at Imperial l)am by 1 ton. <br />W"as used to evaluate and compare salinity control mea.<;ures considered <br />for the GlenW"ood-Dotsero Springs Unit. The criteda of cost eff",ctive- <br />ness and max.imization of ':lalinity reduction W"ero:- used to attempt to <br />select a recommended plan for this unit. The NED analysis is also pre- <br />sented for plan cO'l1parison purposes. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Pla~.!:.ormulation Conc~ <br /> <br />Evaluating conceptual methods of salinity control was the first <br />step in fonnulating alternative plans. Collection, desaltinJ(. convey- <br />ance, and disposal were identified for control of the saline flows enter- <br />ing the Colorado River from th~ Glenwood-Dotsero Springs Unit. <br /> <br />19 <br />