adjusted, as necessary, to account for tributary inflows (table 3). These adjustments were equal (proportional?) to those applied in the currently effective FIS (Federal Emergency Management Agency, YEAR) [Alternatively, adjustments were estimated by applying a drainage-area ratio to “These the main-channel flows.”] Estimated discharges for corresponding stages and water-surface elevations at selected locations, used in the hydraulic model of the XXX River at CITY, STATE. [ft, feet; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; ft3/s, cubic feet per second] Estimated discharge at indicated location, in cubic feet per second Stage of Water-surface At upstream Downstream from Downstream from water-surface elevation end of study confluence with confluence with profile (ft)1 (ft, NAVD 88) reach TRIB1 TRIB2 10 1,357.82 1,920 3,010 11 1,358.82 2,620 4,120 12 1,359.82 3,490 5,480 13 1,360.82 4,460 7,010 14 1,361.82 5,600 8,800 1Water-surface profiles are 1foot increments of stage, referenced to the gage datum of the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage, XXX River at CITY, STATE (station number xxxxxxxx) Topographic and Bathymetric Data All topographic data used in this study are referenced vertically to NAVD 88 and horizontally to the North American Datum of 1983. Cross-section elevation data were obtained from a digital elevation model (DEM) that was derived from light detection and ranging (lidar) data that were collected during by Postprocessing of these data was MONTH, YEAR, NAME OF COMPANY, CITY, STATE. completed by on The original lidar data have horizontal resolution of NAME OF COMPANY DATE. ft (x.x meters) and vertical accuracy of 0.xx ft (xx centimeters) at a 95percent confidence level for x.x the category (root mean squared error of 0.xx ft (xx centimeters)). By these “open terrain” land-cover criteria, the lidar data support production of 2ft contours (Dewberry, 2012); the final DEM, which was
adjusted, as necessary, to account for tributary inflows (table 3). These adjustments were equal (proportional?) to those applied in the currently effective FIS (Federal Emergency Management Agency, YEAR) [Alternatively, “These adjustments were estimated by applying a drainage-area ratio to the main-channel flows.”] Estimated discharges for corresponding stages and water-surface elevations at selected locations, used in the hydraulic model of the XXX River at CITY, STATE. [ft, feet; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; ft3/s, cubic feet per second] Stage of water-surface profile (ft)1 Water-surface elevation (ft, NAVD 88) Estimated discharge at indicated location, in cubic feet per second At upstream end of study reach Downstream from confluence with TRIB1 Downstream from confluence with TRIB2 10 1,357.82 1,920 3,010 11 1,358.82 2,620 4,120 12 1,359.82 3,490 5,480 13 1,360.82 4,460 7,010 14 1,361.82 5,600 8,800 1Water-surface profiles are 1foot increments of stage, referenced to the gage datum of the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage, XXX River at CITY, STATE (station number xxxxxxxx) Topographic and Bathymetric Data All topographic data used in this study are referenced vertically to NAVD 88 and horizontally to the North American Datum of 1983. Cross-section elevation data were obtained from a digital elevation model (DEM) that was derived from light detection and ranging (lidar) data that were collected during MONTH, YEAR, by NAME OF COMPANY, CITY, STATE. Postprocessing of these data was completed by NAME OF COMPANY on DATE. The original lidar data have horizontal resolution of x.x ft (x.x meters) and vertical accuracy of 0.xx ft (xx centimeters) at a 95percent confidence level for the “open terrain” land-cover category (root mean squared error of 0.xx ft (xx centimeters)). By these criteria, the lidar data support production of 2ft contours (Dewberry, 2012); the final DEM, which was
FIM_SIR_templateOct2017.docx