|
<br />SECTION ~
<br />EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
<br />
<br />X-1
<br />
<br />lNTRODUCTION
<br />Thi~ ~ectio~ rt'view, co~t,> bt'nefit~ (tangiole and intangible), environ-
<br />mental factor~, and other point> which W1 1] bt' u.,eful 1rl the review ilnd
<br />decgionmilking proce" of the local goverrvnent5 involved in this study.
<br />
<br />SECONDARY BENEFITS
<br />The secondary or aux1liarybenefit5 that may be realized from ilgi venalter-
<br />native plan are those benefits which can not beeasi1ymooasured in terms of
<br />do 11 ars. '10 attempt ha, been made in thi ~ ~t[}(jy to a" i gn a do 11 ar val ue to
<br />the ,econd ar y benefits. The dec i s i on makers hO>lever, ~houl d be aware of the
<br />potenti a 1 benefits >lhi ch can roo~ul t after the imp 1 ementat i on of d ,e lected
<br />a1ternativeplan. The type and clI1lount of benefits derived depend on the al-
<br />ternative, or combination of alternative, chosen.
<br />
<br />COSTS AND DIRECT BENEFITS
<br />Cost e,timates havebeell prepared for the dlternativoo plan, dnd are pre.
<br />,ented in Section lL The direct beneflt, as,ocidted with each of the al-
<br />ternat ive pl an, have tleen pre~ented in term, of the doll ar vallie of flood
<br />damage reductions. Thdt i,. the benefit derived from ijny given ijlterMtive
<br />plan will be the clII10unt,dved by reaucing the cost, (publiC drldprivdte) as.
<br />sociatedwitnthet!xPectedaverageannual f100d d.;mage, for eacll study redch
<br />a lQllg Clt!ar Creek. This benefi t i ~ the only one that can be ea~i 1,)1 measured
<br />in terms ot dollars to beprest!nted in the form of a benefit/co,t COl11pari.
<br />son. Tile re~ults of t~ bendit/co~t analysis have been tabulated and are
<br />,hown in Table lX-3.
<br />
<br />Secondary benefits associated with the non structural alternatives (flood~
<br />pl ain regul ation, ac~ui sit ion of flood prone properties, and flood warning
<br />system) include:
<br />
<br />o Wildlife habitat and vegetative preservation
<br />
<br />o lllcreased park, recreation and open space opportunities
<br />
<br />TheOenefit/cost analysi,show,tnatthenlghe,tbeneflt/costrat,o i,1.08
<br />for Floodproofing with Remooial ImpriJvcrnent> al.ong Re'.lC1l 1. Allotner
<br />beneii t/co~t rdtio~ are 1 as, tnan 1.0. A benefl t/eost r.;tio of 1 es~ le,.;1L
<br />1.0 is not de,irab Ie from dIl economic ~tandpOlnt considerillg f,Jl1d illg ,0 I ely
<br />from drainagt! financ ing. and therefore. tne al tern<'lt ive, C<'lIlnot be ev~lu<'lted
<br />on tne basi s of economics alone. Tne fdct rtln<'lins tnat the ~otenti al tor
<br />flooding exi>ts along upP<2r CI e<'lr Cree~. ~nd wapi an must be developed to
<br />minimlle the dnticipated d<l1ldge, tlldt will occur during a flood. Tnl.
<br />threat to life and property dtl:1land, th<'lt an dccept<lble plan be aaopted.
<br />However. oecau,oo ot tne nature of lile e(()no.nks in','J:','c:d. t.'lO deci~iofi
<br />
<br />o Groundw<'lt€rr€chargl'and improved oIaterquality
<br />
<br />o Reducedfloodda.'1ldgepotential for floods greater than tne lOO-ye.;r
<br />flood e"en~
<br />
<br />o Opportunities for creating ne~ water supply ,ource,
<br />
<br />Secondary benefits a,soci ated wi th the str~ctural al ternatives (bridge im-
<br />provementswithgrass-lined, rock-lined and structural walled channels, and
<br />floodproofing>lithlimitedstructural improvements) include:
<br />
<br />mak~r> will lla'l€ to pla:e an ~pha,i~ on the ,econdary and intangible bene.
<br />fit, as,oc iated with each alternat ive. Multi purpo~e use of the floOdpl ain
<br />offers additional fundiflg opportunitie, which can effectively rai,e the
<br />b"ncf.t/co,t ratio of an alternative
<br />
<br />o Controlled ris.ing groundwa.t€r table after urbaniZiltion where the
<br />floodplain is to tle developed
<br />
<br />o ~educed street construction costs
<br />
<br />o Improvedmovernentoftraff1c
<br />
|