Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Even though a grid cell may have its ground floor moved above a flood <br />plain. it could incur damages from that flood plain event. To accommodate <br />this. the program has the capability to place either the, ground floor ele- <br />vation or the zero-damage elevation above the flood plain elevation. Table 3 <br />Expected Annual Damages shows an example from the Trail Creek data in which <br />a comparison of expected annual damages is made for a 1990 alternative future <br />land use pattern with 1) no flood plain regulation, 2) flood plain regulation <br />in which the new development is required to place the ground floor above the <br />100-year flood plain. and 3) flood plain regulation in which the new develop- <br />ment is required to place the zero-damage elevation above the lOO-year flood <br />plain. Results such as those shown in the table may be very ~elpful in <br />persuading land use planners to be aware of the consequences of taking an <br />inactive role in the regulation of the flood plain. <br /> <br />The evaluation of flood plain regulation is not restricted to the 100-year: <br />flood plain, and it may be an alternative evaluated singularly or in combi- <br />nation with other flood proofing alternatives. An example of a combination <br />of these' alternatives might be to place the structures above the 75-year <br />flood plain and uniformly flood proof to the 100-year flood frequency event. <br /> <br /> TABLE 3 <br /> AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGES <br /> (1000's of Dollars) <br />EVALUATION REACH REACH REACH <br />CONDITION 1 2 3 <br />Existing 1.5 2.5 12.0 <br />Land Use <br />1990 Land Use 1033.3 350.0 32.7 <br />Without policy <br />1990 Land Use 19.3 63.8 23.8 <br />With policy of <br />Ground Floor <br />1990 Land Use 9.2 6.7 3.0 <br />With policy of <br />Zero Damage <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />,., <br />