Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Selected Alternative <br /> <br />A conceptual design for each of the alternative major project elements was completed in sufficient <br />detail to determine construction quantities and cost estimates. All of the projects were then reviewed <br />and studied in order to develop a project selection matrix. Several factors were used to evaluate and <br />prioritize the projects and their components. Each Alternative was ranked from 1 through 6 with the <br />highest ranked alternative receiving the most points. Each factor was given a weighting factor based <br />upon the relative importance of the factor. The higher the weighting factor, the more points scored. <br />The total weighting factors are 100. Thus if an alternative was ranked first in every category it would <br />receive a total of 600 points (100 weight factors times a rank of 6). The factors used to establish the <br />project prioritization list and their relative weights are discussed below: <br /> <br />Table 6. Alternative Evaluation Factors <br /> <br /> FACTOR ..... ...... DESCRIPTION OF FACTOR AND WEIGHT ... ... ...... <br />I 1. I Does the project provide immediate flood control benefits to the City of Sterling? A <br /> weight of 15 out of 100 is assigned to this factor. This is an important factor in that the <br /> Weight majority of the impacted population resides in Sterling. An estimated 414 homes <br /> 15 sustained flood damage as a result of the 1997 storm. <br />I 2. I Does the project provide immediate flood control benefits to farmland adjacent to <br /> Pawnee Creek? A weight of 10 out of 100 is assigned to this factor since it was <br /> Weight estimated that as much as 13,000 acres of crop 111Dd were damaged from the 1997 storm <br /> 10 with crop damage lIDd damage to farming property of $2.5 million. <br />I 3. I Does the project provide immediate flood control benefits to the Town of Town of <br /> Atwood? This consideration draws a weight of 10 out of 100 since such a significllDt <br /> Weight portion of the town was inundated during the 1997 storm. <br /> 10 <br />I 4. I Does this alternative have community support? A weight of 15 out of 100 is assigned to <br /> this factor. <br /> Weight <br /> 15 <br />I 5. I Ranking of project with respect to ease of environmental permitting/implementation. <br /> This factor is weighted 10 out of 100. No points given in the event that regulatory <br /> Weight requirements would likely not be obtained. Points assigned based on relative cost of <br /> 10 mitigation. <br />I 6. I Ranking of project with respect to estimated costs versus benefits. A weight of 15 out <br /> of 100 is given to this factor. <br /> Weight <br /> 15 <br />I 7. I Is there sufficient funding available to complete the project? This factor is weighted <br /> relatively high (15 out of 100) because of grant requirements that the project must be <br /> Weight affordable and implemented as a stand alone project. <br /> 15 <br /> <br />III-14 <br />