My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Search
Floodplain Information Report Volume 2 White River from Rio Blanco Lake to the Utah-Colorado State Line
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1100
>
Floodplain Information Report Volume 2 White River from Rio Blanco Lake to the Utah-Colorado State Line
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/2/2012 8:47:11 AM
Creation date
7/26/2012 11:41:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
Basin
Yampa/White/Green
Title
Floodplain Information Report Volume 2 White River from Rio Blanco Lake to the Utah-Colorado State Line
Date
3/1/1995
Prepared For
The Recovery Implementaiton Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
F1 <br />n <br />1 <br />r <br />4.3 Field Surveys and Cross - Section Preparation <br />The project budget and schedule only allowed for field surveying of three cross - sections on the <br />White River. The selection of the field- surveyed cross - sections was based on the availability of <br />a nearby benchmark, the accessibility of the location, and the ability to survey the opposite bank. <br />Field estimates were made of the average water depth, but the channel bottoms were not <br />surveyed. Estimations of the Mannings 'n' value were made at each surveyed cross - section <br />location during the field survey. <br />For some reaches, field- surveyed cross - sections from other stream reaches were transferred to the <br />reach in question. Appropriate adjustments were made to ground elevations. When flow depths <br />were computed, the appropriate slope values, Manning's 'n' values, and flow values were used. <br />Map- derived cross - sections were utilized for the remaining reaches. Some map- derived cross - <br />sections were modified to more accurately represent actual channel shapes. When the USGS <br />maps were felt to lack sufficient detail, the map data were combined with field - surveyed ,data <br />from other locations to prepare hybrid cross - sections. Canyon reaches on the White River were <br />not represented by cross - sections since the level of detail obtained could not be displayed on the <br />base maps. <br />The cross - sections used for the computation of flood depths can be grouped into four different <br />categories: <br />Type 1 - Field - surveyed cross - sections used only in the representative reach; <br />Type 2 - Field- surveyed cross - sections transferred from a reach with similar <br />characteristics using input parameters specific to the reach in question; <br />Type 3 - Hybrid cross - sections using map- derived data and field observations; <br />Type 4 - Map- derived cross- sections using flood depths from published report; <br />By using these categories to identify cross - section sources, 7 of the 10 reaches on the White River <br />can be divided into the following groups: <br />Type 1 Cross - sections - 3 reaches <br />Type 2 Cross - sections - 1 reach <br />Type 3 Cross - sections - 2 reaches <br />Type 4 Cross - sections - 1 reach <br />There were 3 additional reaches which were classified as follows: 2 canyon reaches for which <br />no cross - sections were developed; 1 reach where a detailed study had already been performed. <br />Table S identifies the cross - sections, the group type, and flow values used to calculate the flood <br />depths. The cross - sections, with 50 -year and 100 -year flood lines illustrated, are presented after <br />Section 4.4 in Figures 7A -7F. <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.