From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geography (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merger with Flood plain[edit]

  • See discussion at Talk:Flood plain. -- Cuppysfriend 16:26, 9 May 200 clear cut to everyone which term should remain, but looking at institutions and individuals from across the English-speaking world, "floodplain" seems to be the more widely accepted form, while "flood plain" appears to be moving towards disuse (which seems to be the trend with compound nouns that become commonly accepted). And so I am now merging the two here. Daniel Collins 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

piepiepiepiepiepieipeieppiepiepiepiepiepie — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


The current images do not illustrate what a floodplain is. The first, from Alaska, shows a wide braided river. The part of the land between the threads of water is part of the river not the floodplain. The second, from South Carolina, illustrates a recent high water mark. It's very good for a page on flooding not floodplains. Daniel Collins 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The USGS description for the Alaskan image describes it as showing a "gravel flood plain." I'll admit that the "floodplain" part of the image in foreground is less distinct than the riverbed. There is another USGS image of Turtle Creek in Wisconsin that might better fill the bill. Give me time to upload it and we can compare them. As for the South Carolina image, it sure looks a lot like the floodways of our creeks here in Indiana; but it's also certainly an excellent example of a high water mark. -- In a bit of a rush just now, Cuppysfriend 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The article's not in a rush. I looked for some diagrams, but didn't find any that I knew were usable by WP. Daniel Collins 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Check out these USGS images and tell me what you think: Turtle Creek, Rock County, Wisconsin; and Lance Creek, Niobrara County, Wyoming. -- Cuppysfriend 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Both are good - the second is prob better coz it shows the boundary of the floodplain too. Good stuff.
My bias is to have a conceptual diagram alongside an actual photo, but I'm starting to think that it might be useful to have a series of images at the bottom of the article as well. By looking at different images it is easier to recognise the elements of a structure, by seeing what is common to each image.Daniel Collins 04:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Glad you like the pix. I'm scouting around for diagrams, too, and have probably covered the same territory that you have. The copyright status of diagrams from state DNRs is murky. Surely, there's something out there from FEMA. By the way, since you're an authority on phosphorus transport, do you know of any research that links high concentrations of phophorus with a decline in freshwater mussel populations? Just curious. -- Cuppysfriend 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Lance Creek again Although this is unquestionably a PD USGS image, I had to cheat a little to find it. Here's where: [1] -- Cuppysfriend 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reconstructed article[edit]

Please look at my sandbox draft of a reconstructed version of this article at User:Cuppysfriend/sandbox. I've rearranged the text, added different, more descriptive pictures and a reference. It's still too focused on the U.S., but it might make a good foundation to build on. Most of the current changes are in the subsections of "Formation" and "Physical geography." Expansion of the description of the U.S. flood insurance program as a means of restricting floodplain development would be good. -- Cuppysfriend 00:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Great work! (I was fearing re-writing the article.) Also, excellent array of images. The article's accreted enough material to trigger an avulsion to the new channel. Daniel Collins 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Done! (And, of course, open to further revision.) Kept older images and "globalise" template. -- Cuppysfriend 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A little change[edit]

Deltas are aggradational but they're not described as floodplains as far as I know. Daniel Collins 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...Maybe that's an artifact of the 1911 EB text. Deltas obviously have river channels and experience flooding. How should we recast that language? Meantime, I'll delete the Nile Delta image. Don't want to mislead anyone. -- Cuppysfriend 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep...that's from the 1911 EB, all right. Again, should we edit it or delete it? -- Cuppysfriend 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a gray area. From my perspective it is more valuable to separate floodplains from deltas from alluvial fans. While all experience flows that overtop the main channels, where the water overtops may not be well described by a plain. I think of floodplains as constrained in some way, while deltas and alluvial fans are not. I'm not sure if there is a concrete official position. Daniel Collins 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If this helps, it is from the Glossary of Geology, pub. by the Amer. Geol. Institute: flood plain: (a) The surface or strip of relatively smooth land adjacent to a river channel, constructed (or in the process of being constructed) by the present riverin its existing regimen and covered with water when the river overflows its banks at times of high water. It is built of alluvium carried by the river during floods and deposited in the sluggish waterbeyond the influence of the swiftest current. A river has one flood plain and may have one or more terraces representing abandoned flood plains. (b) Any flat or nearly flat, usually dry lowland that borders a stream and that may be covered by its waters at flood stages; the land, beyond a stream channel, described by the perimeter of the maximum probable flood. Also spelled floodplain; flood-plain. If it doesn't help, ignore it! :) To me, a delta is not a floodplain, even if it may be relatively flat; its sediments may be quite different (often coarser than the muds typical of a floodplain; yes, I know both are found in both), and geologically a delta may often be (partly) submarine and thus not directly related to river processes. Cheers Geologyguy 23:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, DC, and also you, GG, my fellow IU alum. How about a section or subsection that spells out the distinctions you've noted, with appropriate reference to the G of G? You guys are the pros, so why don't one of you do it? I'm just the bumbling, well-intentioned layperson who drew the wrong conclusion from the 1911 EB language...and I don't happen to have a copy of the G of G handy for specific page reference. Also, did I get the business about "aggradation and planation" right in the Laramie River photo caption? Feel free to edit anything I wrote that you think is off the mark. Gloriana, frangipana -- Cuppysfriend 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought you were doing a great job - I just jumped in with the "official" definition after Daniel's observations. I might be able to add a bit after the next few days, but the article looks good to me... Go Hoosiers! --Geologyguy 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Untangling the NFIP[edit]

I've edited the section on US floodplain regulation a bit.

I tried to clarify what the floodplain/floodway/SFHA are, but tried to keep it fairly simple and generic, and not bog down into the minutia of doing a flood study, defining a floodway, etc.

I've also edited the requirements for elevating structures within floodplains. Where elevations have been determined by detailed study or estimation, the minimum federal requirement is only to elevate to the 100-year flood. The two-foot requirement is for certain unstudied areas, and is two feet above the surrounding grade, not flood elevation.

I hope that I've gotten the citation of the regs in a correct, or at least acceptable format. I know there's a very terse format, but I thought slightly more verbose would actually be more useful. I can also re-find the NFIP glossary page that I used to pop out the actual language/citations. --Lonotter 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

US Gov references links bad[edit]

"As of October 9, 2012, the e-CFR resides at a new URL. Please reset your bookmarks, favorites, links and desktop shortcuts to:"

I could not locate the correct links.

L Kirk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captkirksc (talkcontribs) 16:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)