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 />II <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Conclusions: <br /> <br />ALL AREAS: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />There is an overall lack of detail in the dtm data for quantitative hydraulic and <br />geomorphic analysis. <br />Clear definition of the active river channel and floodplain is lacking. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />AREAl: <br /> <br />There are approximately 20 instances of inconsistent data along the river. The <br />COE will edit these inconsistencies out of the data prior to developing engineering models from <br />the data set. <br /> <br />AREA 2: <br /> <br />There are no apparent inconsistencies found within this area. However, there is <br />insufficient topographic coverage in the northeast corner of the data set to accomplish hydraulic <br />analysis. (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 70+00) <br /> <br />AREA 3: <br /> <br />The upstream end (- 5000 feet) ofthe dtm data (near the river) for this area <br />appears to be faulty. This conclusion is based on observation of plotted cross sections in this <br />reach. The cross sections show a "crown" across the river channel rather than the expected <br />"channel" section. The COE cannot confidently edit this reach of data for use in engineering <br />models without additional field topographic data. <br />