FLOOD02048 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TABLE 2 AGGREGATE DAMAGE FUNCTIONS (1) (1000's of Dollars) .... . Exist. Land Use 1 Elev. 1 6 7 9 Total 640.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 645.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 650.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 651.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.9 652.0 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.9 653.0 1.6 0.4 0.0' 0.1 2.1 654.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 2.4 655.0 2.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 2.9 656.0 2.8 0.4 1.2 0.2 4.6 657.0 3.1 0.4 1.2 0.2 4.9 658.0 3.2 0.4 20.4 0.2 24.2 659.0 3.4 0.4 86.1 0.2 90.1 660.0 3.7 0.4 175.9 0.3 lRO.3 661.0 4.0 0.4 267.5 0.3 272.2 662.0 4.2 0.4 325.1 0.4 330.1 663.0 4.4 0.4 372.2 0.4 377.4 664.0 4.5 0.5 410.6 0.4 ," 416.0 665.0 4.6 0.5 442.8 0,5 448.3 1 . Land Use Categories Are: 1 · Natural vegetation 6 · Agricultural 7 · Industrial 9 · Pasture EVALUATION OF NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES General APrroach.--The evaluation of the flood damage potential of a stream reach or existing (or base) conditions and with the assumed imple- mentation of proposed flood loss reduction measures is an integral part of the plan formulation process. The general procedure used to perform these analyses is the computation of "expected" annual damages of the system for the with and without condition of each alternative to obtain the average annual benefits associated with each plan. The benefits are the "expected" annual damage for the base (without) condition less the "expected" annual damage associated with the alternative (with) condition. The hydrologic information of flow rating curves (discharge vs. elevation) and flow-fre- quency relationships are combined with the elevation-damage function to yield a damage-frequency curve for the condition analyzed. The damage- frequency function is then integrated to compute the "expected" annual damage of the condition or alternative evaluated. 9