Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />I <br /> <br />3. River cleared and maintained vegetation free and major <br />sandbars removed ('n'=0.03). <br /> <br />The computed flood profile for the 1985 river condition compared well <br />with the FIS at the downstream and upstream study limits, an <br />indication of the compatibility of the models. <br /> <br />The model showed that efforts taken to clean the river of vegetation <br />and sandbars was very effective in lowering the flood profiles, <br />conditi ons 2 and 3, above. Cl eani ng woul d lower the profil es 1- to <br />2-feet. The model also showed that the calculated average flow <br />velocities are relatively low which means river backwater effects are <br />high and thus changes downstream have a significant impact upstream. <br /> <br />River Cross Section Surveys (1986) <br /> <br />For this study, City crews obtained surveys of four river cross <br />secti ons in the area of Ri verwood Estates. I n May, 1986, Secti ons <br />28.8 and 29.0 were surveyed. In September, 1986, Sections 28.4 and <br />29.5 were surveyed. Only the main river channel area of each section <br />was surveyed. <br /> <br />The datum for these surveys was not identified by the City. This <br />study has presumed the datum is the same for the 1986, 1985 and FIS <br />surveys. This should be confirmed by the City. <br /> <br />The surveyed cross sections are plotted in Figures 1-3. The plots <br />show that the sections taken from the FIS study maps and the surveys <br />in 1985 and 1986 compare well in the area where no changes were made. <br /> <br />-5- <br />