FLOOD06506 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

description should include, as a minimum, a narrative description of each alternative and a base map showing the locations of proposed facilities. 2.2.6 Evaluation of Alternatives After alternatives have been developed, they must be evaluated to distinguish the differences between them. The number of evaluation factors used and the extent of the analyses will vary with the scope of the study. In general, feasibility studies will require more detailed evaluations than reconnaissance studies. The type of evaluations to be performed for each study should be developed in consultation with the eWeB staff. Six evaluation factors are suggested for use in studies funded by the eWeB. 'They are: (1) Description of project outputs or yields; (2) Project cosl~ including capital costs, annual costs and cost per unit of output; (3) Impacts on the man-made environment, the natural environment, and the existing social stmcture; (4) The financial feasibility of the proposed project as measured by the project: sponsor's ability to repay all reimbursable costs; (5) Institutional requirements for project implementation; and (6) Any special technical problems which should be taken into consideration. Each of these evaluation factors is discussed in more detail in Appe:ndix B. In some situations (particularly in the case of reconnaissan(:e studies), it may be necessary to utilize an iterative process in which alternatives are formulated and evaluated more than once. The iterative process often takes place in conjunction with a study advisory group or study workshops. Where such a process is utilized it should be outlined in the study plan, 2.2.7 Study Results The results of the alternatives evaluation should be described and displayed in such a manner that the differences between alternatives are apparent. In addition, the study report: should include a comparative evaluation which compares each alternative with all of the other proposed alternatives. Example: Assume that three alternatives A, B and e have been evaluated using costs, impacts and institutional considerations as evaluation factors. The comparative evaluation then might show that Alternative A would cost 25 percent more than Alternative Band 30 percent more than Alternative e but it would entail a lower level of impacts and would be easier to implement from an institutional standpoint than either of the other two alternatives. The same type of comparison is then made for Altemative B vis-a-vis Alternatives A and e and for Alternative e vis-a-vis Alternatives A and B. Each study report: should include a set of conclusions and recommendations based upon the evaluation and comparison of alternatives described above. The report: must identify a recommended alternative or should state the reasons why none of the alternatives appear 13