Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--. <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 />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Preserve at Weaver Creek <br />CLOMR Report <br /> <br />December 26. 2000 <br /> <br />II. PROPOSED CHANGES <br /> <br />A. Low Flow Crossing <br /> <br />A path connecting the east and west sides of the development will be constructed with a <br />riprap embankment through the channel. Culverts sized to pass the low flow will be <br />installed under the crossing with the required riprap erosion protection, and the floodway <br />will be graded to fonn a small pool on the upstream side of the crossing. During high flows, <br />the walkway will be inundated. <br /> <br />B. Retaining Walls <br /> <br />The revised 100-year floodplain is proposed to follow the retaining walls that surround most <br />of Weaver Creek through the site. They will be constructed so that the 100-year flood will <br />have I-foot of freeboard to the top of the retaining walls. <br /> <br />III. REVISED STUDY <br /> <br />A. Additional Cross Sections <br /> <br />Cross sections were added at locations upstream and downstream of the proposed low water <br />crossing. The crossing was analyzed using the Hec-2 special culvert option, which requires <br />more cross sections than the original study used. Cross Section 35+13 and 35+73 were <br />added for modeling purposes only. <br /> <br />B. Analvsis <br /> <br />The Hec-2 Program was used to analyze the site. The cross sections used were the same as <br />those used in the 1981 study of Weaver Creek except those noted above. A field survey was <br />done in 1999, updating the actual conditions of the channel. This survey was used to <br />develop the existing conditions scenario. The 1999 survey shows differences in the <br />topography from the 1981 study. These differences include the absence of a dam between <br />stations 35+40 and 35+80 and steeper side slopes. For the proposed conditions, the existing <br />condition cross sections were revised to include the addition of the culvert crossing and the <br />retaining walls. <br /> <br />IV. RESULTS <br /> <br />A. Flood Tables <br /> <br />The following tables compares the 1981 Study, the 1999 Existing conditions, and the <br />proposed conditions. <br /> <br />David Evans and Associates, lnc, <br /> <br />2 <br />