Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />IDBNTIFICATION OF PROPOSBD PLANS <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />During the plan identification process, all ideas were considered <br />equally valid. The planning team's objective was to identify any <br />and all potential plans at the beginning of the study, rather <br />than introduce additional plans during the course of the study, <br />or eliminate any plan before consideration. For this reason, the <br />individual merits of the plans were not considered during the <br />plan identification process. Determination of the plans was <br />based on the assumption that all plans would initially be <br />considered regardless of any technical, institutional, political, <br />or international problems that might exist. The plan <br />identification process took place during several team meetings. <br />Input from other sources within Reclamation was also utilized. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />As the list of plans took shape, it became apparent the plans <br />fell into three major groups. The first group (Group A) involved <br />structural or operational changes to the YDP itself. The next, <br />and largest group (Group 8), were plans that would provide water <br />to substitute for drainage water which, because of water quality, <br />would not be delivered to Mexico. This undeliverable water would <br />be bypassed to the Santa Clara Slough. The last group (Group C) <br />involved possible changes to the legal or institutional <br />constraints that could reduce or eliminate the need for YDP <br />production. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />EVALUATION PROCEDURE <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Evaluation and ranking of the proposed plans involved both a <br />subjective and an objective evaluation. A brief overview of the <br />evaluation process is presented here. A discussion of the <br />evaluation and rating process are in Appendix A attached to this <br />report. A complete discussion of each plan is in the <br />"Description of Proposed Plans" section of this report. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The subjective portion of the evaluation considers many of the <br />factors that are difficult to directly measure yet give an <br />indication of a plan'S "value" or "overall ~orth." A series of <br />rating criteria was developed by the team to provide a measure of <br />each plan's value or Total Value Score (TVS). Team involvement <br />in the subjective portion of the evaluation was considered <br />essential for providing a comprehensive, unbiased numerical <br />rating for the proposed plans. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The objective portion of the evaluation consisted of estimating <br />the annual costs of the various plans. However, a number of <br />analyses were required before costs could be estimated. These <br />supplemental analyses included, where appropriate, estimates of <br />yield by plans providing substitute water for untreated drainage <br />water; determination of projected years YDP production would be <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />I <br />