Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> TABlE 1 <br /> SUSQUEHANNA FLOOD CONTROL REVIEW STUDY <br /> FLOOD EVENT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS <br /> Expected Annual Damage Reduction <br /> (1,000 1974 Dollars) <br />Reservoir Hydrology Hydrology Hydrology Hydrology BydrQlogy <br />System A 8 C D E <br />Existing <br />Reservoirs 26,251 37,462 39,103 33,805 36,633 <br />112 East <br />Guil ford* 950 4,275 2,377 1,981 2,538 <br />155 Towanda* 3,846 653 573 124 632 <br />1902 Sinnema- <br />hon1ng. 5,674 5,384 5,798 2,727 4,649 <br /> <br />* Damage reduction in first added (to existing system) position. <br /> <br />** Hydrology A - Tropical Storm Agnes (June 1972) used as the repre- <br />sentative event, nine proportions (ratios) were used to cover <br />range of damaging floods. <br /> <br />Hydrology B - A Standard Project Flood (SPF) (a synthetic event <br />centered lower in the basin (Harrisburg, PAl) used as the repre- <br />sentative event, also nine ratios used. <br /> <br />Hydrology C - A synthetic event representing a 10-inch storm spread <br />uniformly over the basin, seven ratios used. <br /> <br />Hydrology 0 - March 1936 flood (flood of record in many areas of <br />basin) used as representative event, six ratios used. <br /> <br />Hydrology E - Adopted system hydrology consisting of two ratios <br />each of Agnes, the SPF, the 10-inch uniform and the 1936 flood. <br /> <br />The impact on system formulation of the general level of damage <br /> <br /> <br />assessment, discount rates and costs are greatly dependent upon the <br /> <br /> <br />relative variation in the system. For instance, difference in <br /> <br />30 <br />