Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-, <br />, <br /> <br />II, PROJECT FEASIBILITY CONSIDERING ONLY DAMAGE REDUCTION AS AN <br />OBJECTIVE <br /> <br />The reader is referred to the work of James (4) and the recent <br />report of the UDFCD (2) for background reading in the economics of <br /> <br />flood control planning, In this docun~nt a step-by-step methodology <br /> <br />will be outlined but not derived because of limited space, <br /> <br />The basic steps in the evaluation procedure are as given below, <br /> <br />1, Decomposition of project into decision units (stream <br /> <br />reaches) <br /> <br />2, Development of damac)e-frequency information <br /> <br />3, Formulation of basic alternatives for each decision <br /> <br />unit <br /> <br />4, Screening to identify most promising alternatives <br /> <br />in each decision unit <br /> <br />5, Study of variation of costs and benefits with design <br /> <br />frequency for alternatives within each decision unit <br /> <br />6, Display of evaluation in~ormation in format for decision <br /> <br />makers <br /> <br />7, Tradeoff analysis considering other benfits and costs <br /> <br />8, Selection of recommended plan <br /> <br />These steps are described in more detail below, <br /> <br />1, Project Decomposi~icJ.r1., The best overall plan can only be <br /> <br />determined if the best plan for each o' the parts is known, Unless <br /> <br />the plan is divided into stream reaches (decision units), it is possible <br /> <br />for 1 ess-than-opt imum features to pass by on the meri ts of others, <br /> <br />Too much decomposition will bury the analyst in detail, It is <br /> <br />suggested that decomposition by subcatchment, by reach and by juris- <br /> <br /> <br />diction be considered, The subcatchments selected should be principal <br />