My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02234
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02234
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:23:50 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:42:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Hydrologic Aspects of Project Planning
Date
3/7/1972
Prepared For
US
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
166
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 />to consider costs and adequacy of alternate reservoi~s and/or systems of <br />reservoirs to the one planned for Rowlesburg. WESwas asked to put to- <br />gether an analytical system capable of providing a quick evaluation of <br />alternate reservoir systems. The funding level was low ($16,000) and time <br />was short (6-8 wks) for this effort. <br /> <br />32. Because of this it was necessary to put together an analytical <br />system consisting of highly generalized subsystems. The overall analytical <br />system is conceptualized in fig. 7 and described in the following paragraphs. <br /> <br />33. Blocks 1 through 5 represent the data base from which input to the <br />models identified in blocks 6-16 is obtained. Block 1 represents a data <br />store of xyz coordinates obtained by digitizing the topographic maps. Block <br />2 represents a store of 40 years of rainfall and runoff records for the Cheat <br />River valley. Block 3 represents the store of data on the availability and <br />costs of materials for the construction of the reservoir and its appurte- <br />nances, e.g. recreation facilities, etc. Block 4 deals with the cultural <br />habits and distribution of the population. Block 5 is concerned with in- <br />ventories of the wildlife resources (habitat, fisheries, hunting, etc.) <br />obtained from game and fish management agencies, primarily to be used to <br />determine the necessary requirements to meet wildlife mitigation. <br /> <br />34. The runoff subroutine, Block 6, required inputs of the channel <br />cross-sectional area and the stage and velocity measurements obtained from <br />the 40 years of record. From these data the program computed the average <br />monthly nmoff. <br /> <br />35. The lake capacity subroutine, Block 7, takes inputs of runoff, <br />digitized contours from USGS maps, and dam coordinates and outputs water <br />surface area, volumetric capacity and approximate length of shoreline for <br />10-ft increments of elevation. The basic method is as follows: Contours <br />are taken at about 50-ft elevation intervals. The area and perimeter cal- <br />culations are made for the lowest contour included in the reservoir area. <br />The area at the next lowest even 50- or 100-ft elevation is assumed to be <br />zero. Direct interpolation of area and perimeter is made at 10-ft incre- <br />ments between this zero area and that already calculated at the first <br />digitized contour. The next higher contour is read in and the area and <br />perimeter calculated. Intermediate 10-ft contour values are interpolated <br />and the process repeats until a specified maximum water surface elevation <br />is reached. Volume calculations are then made by the average end area <br />method. ' <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />36. The visitation subroutine, Block 8, accepts as inputs the number <br />of access roads of interstate quality, number of paved roads, number of <br />unimproved roads, surface area of reservoir, shoreline length, topography <br />classification, number of competing facilities, distance to competing <br />facilities, size of competing facilities, number of counties in proposed <br />reservoir area, population density of each county, median income of each <br />county, urban population of each county, distance to populated center of <br />each county, and population of each county. <br /> <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.