Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />I I. PROJECT FEASIBILITY CONSIDERING ONLY DM1AGE REDUCTION AS AN <br />OBJECTIVE <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 />flood control planning. In this document a step-by-step methodology <br />will be outlined but not derived because of limited space. <br />The basic steps in the evaluation procedure are as given below. <br />1. Decomposition of project into decision units (stream <br />reaches) <br />2, Development of damage~frequency information <br />3. Formulation of basic alternatives for each decision <br />unit <br />4. Screening to identify most promising alternatives <br />in each decision unit <br />5. Study of variation of costs and benefits with de?ign <br />frequency for alternatives within each decision unit <br />6. Display of evaluation information in format for decision <br />makers <br />7. Tradeoff analysis considering other benfits and costs <br />8. Selection of recommended plan <br />These steps are described in more detail below, <br />1, Project Decomposition. The best overall plan can only be <br />determined if the best plan for each of the parts is known. Unless <br />the plan is divided into stream reaches (decision units), it is possible <br />for 1ess-than-optimum features to pass by on the merits of others. <br />Too much decomposition will bury the analyst in detail. It is <br />suggested that decomposition by subcatchment, by reach and by juris- <br />diction be considered. The subcatchments selected should be principal <br />