My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD01539
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
FLOOD01539
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 12:58:15 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:06:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Logan
Community
Sterling
Stream Name
South Platte River
Title
Recreational and Flood Plain Developments at Sterling
Date
6/1/1992
Prepared For
Sterling
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />1989 SWDY <br /> <br />The 1989 Section 22 study developed hydraulic data necessary to <br />determine the effects of flood mitigation projects along the South <br />Platte River at Sterling. The information included an updated <br />existing-conditions IOOdel for the South Platte lliver and corres]Xlnding <br />floodway. The updated I1lOdel was executed using the 1988 version of <br />the Corps of Engineers Standard Step-Backwater Program HEC-2 (HEC-2 <br />program) . A discussion of the updated HEC-2 ffixlel is contained in the <br />1989 study. <br /> <br />HYDRAULIC ,AN,'u;ysrs <br /> <br />.FI1J.1 PARAMEI'ERS <br /> <br />Because the conditions of the flood plain are essentially the same <br />as they were for the 1989 study. no c111mges were made to the existing- <br />condi tions 100-year flood and floodway model. The model was then <br />executed on the FebnJary 1991 versi,cm of the HEC-2 program (1992 <br />Study) . The resulting output was compared to the output for the 1989 <br />study to determine if the newer version had any significant impact on <br />water-surface elevaticms. Comparing water surface profiles showed <br />less than a 0.1 foot difference for bet:h the without-floodway <br />conditions and the with-floodway conditionswid1. no point along the <br />floodway profile exceeding the standard 1.0-foot maxirrn.nn rise. Table <br />1 summarizes the with.. and without-floodway conditions for the 1989 <br />and 1992 studies. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.