My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD09435
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
FLOOD09435
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:09:15 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 4:19:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Floodway Determination Using Computer Program HEC-2: Document Number 5
Date
5/1/1974
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.
/
47
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 />..ere the water surface elevation drops. other criteria should be selected <br />to 1 illi t the extent of encroachment. <br />e. Individuals developing floodway data should be alert for special <br />conditions involving the area under consideration and the criteria used <br />which .y affect the application of the floodolay concept. For example. <br />the resulting increase in water surface IIIil.Y greatly enlarge the zone <br />area affected by the selected flood an unreasonable distance beyond <br />its natural flood plain. This condition can exist when the overbank <br />area is very flat andlllOre than an insignificant increase in the water <br />surface is pel'llitted. <br />As shown in the SlIIIIIary Printout (Appendix II). the change in <br />water surface elevation for the preliminary run was below the one <br />foot limit for the first three cross sections for both encroachllll!nt <br />profiles. Water surface elevations for the next sections were below <br />the limits for the first encroachment profile (8.4). but above for the <br />second encroachllll!nt profile (10.4). Both profiles were within the <br />limits for the last two sections. The results from the 10.4 profile are <br />probably suitable for a pre1 iminary floodway, however. by combining <br />the results of the two profiles, a profile closer to the one foot <br />limit should be achievable. <br />In specifying input for a second trial, a 10.4 encroachment <br />was specified up to Section 0.34. Although the results at Section <br />0.34 were within the limit, the encroachment at this section probably <br />contributed to the excessive change at the upstream Section 0.55. For <br />Section 0.34, encroachment stations were selected between those computed <br /> <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.