Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The Regulatory Guide 3.11 also acknowledges that less conservative, <br />smaller floods may be considered in situations where "... failure <br />would neither jeopardize human life nor create damage to property <br />or the environment beyond the sponsor's legal liabilities and finan- <br />cial capabilities", <br /> <br />The minimum criteria is based on the guidelines set forth by the <br />Corps of Engineers in their "Recommended Guidelines for Safety <br />Inspection of Dams". Using the classification system of this pub- <br />lication, the UCC Club Ranch ponds and River Ponds would be classi- <br />fied as small, (between 50 and 1000 ac..ft) low hazard dar.ls (no loss <br />of life with minimal economic loss). The Spillway Design Flcod <br />for this size and hazard classification would range from the 50 to <br />100 year event. Refer to Tables 1 through 3 in the Appendix. <br /> <br />It would appear that the use of a PMF is not usually appropriate in <br />the determination of a floodway in a river channel. In the U.S. <br />Army Corps of Engineers Civil ~ngineer Bulletin No. !i2-8, "Standard <br />Project Flood Determinations", Section 1,06, e. it is stated that: <br /> <br />e. Maximum Probable (or Maximum Possible) Flood <br />estimates are applicable to projects where <br />consideration is to be given to virtually <br />complete security against potential floods. <br />Applications of such estimates are usually <br />confi ned to the determi nati on of sp'i 11 way <br />requirements for high dams, but in unusual <br />cases may constitute the design flood for <br />local protection works where an exception- <br />ally high degree of protection is advisable <br />and economically obtainable. <br /> <br />It is Dravo's opinion that with the diluting effects of the large <br /> <br />flows associated with the P~F and the zero-risk inherent in a PMF <br /> <br />event, the need for such a conservative flow is not justified. <br /> <br />5 <br />