image
image
 
August 2002 flood
in the watercourses of the
Osterzgebirge mountains
Event Analysis
Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie
Management-Report

image
 
In August 2002, Saxony was hit by a
region-wide flood disaster. The Elbe and
Mulde rivers and the tributary streams in
the Osterzgebirge mountains were worst
hit by the flooding. Torrential rain on 12
and 13 August 2002 caused flash floods
in the mountains. The consequences were
devastating: valleys were flooded and
filled with mud and boulders; houses, roads
and cultural heritage were destroyed.
The damage caused by flooding, estimated
at over 1 billion euros* alone in the area
surrounding the streams in the Osterzge-
birge mountains, once again demonstrated
the vulnerability of our living environment.
Immediately after the flood, the Saxon
State Office for Environment and Geology
began an event analysis of the streams in
the Osterzgebirge mountains, which had
been particularly badly affected by the
flood. Right from the beginning, the State
Office co-operated closely with the Swiss
Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and
Landscape Research. The project received
financial support from the Swiss Agency
for Development and Co-operation (SDC).
The extent of the catastrophe was such
that a thorough review of the flood con-
trol scheme in Saxony was initiated. The
analysis of the flood included a thorough
examination and documentation of the
event. This documentation was used to
draw a series of conclusions, which sub-
sequently formed the basis for developing
a sustainable flood control scheme in
Saxony. The purpose of such a scheme
is to prevent floods like that in August
2002 with catastrophic consequences for
the state and its people. This management
report summarises the most important
findings and conclusions of this event
analysis.
1
* Please note that billion means thousand million in this brochure.

image
 
Hydro-meteorological and geomorphologic processes
The usually gentle streams of Biela,Gottleuba,Müglitz,Lockwitz-
bach,Weißeritz,Wilde Sau,Triebisch and Ketzerbach were trans-
formed into torrential rivers, causing more than
€1
billion worth
of damage in about 8.5 per cent of the flooded areas in Saxony–
some 15 per cent of the total damage recorded in the Free State.
Sadly, 12 people lost their lives in the area under investigation.
2
In the first half of August 2002, large parts of Central Europe
were hit by torrential rain. The Free State of Saxony, and in
particular the catchment areas of the streams in the Ost-
erzgebirge mountains, bore the brunt of the precipitation and
were therefore badly affected by the flooding.
Fig. 1:
Area under investi-
gation–the left bank
tributaries of the
Upper Elbe in Saxo-
ny and precipitation
in mm from 11 to
13 August 2002
(Source: DWD
[German Meteoro-
logical Office])
Legend
Precipitation measuring station
–––
Isohyets of the three-day precipitation
from 11 to 13 Aug 2002

Fig. 3:
Historical hydrograph
curve and peak dis-
charge rates for the
river Weißeritz com-
pared with the flood
on 13 August 2002
3
Fig. 2:
Hourly precipitation
values measured
in the Zinnwald-
Georgenfeld, Dresden,
and Lichtenhain-
Mittelndorf stations
between 7 p.m. CET
on 11 August 2002
and 11 p.m. CET
on 13 August 2002
(Source: DWD [Ger-
man Meteorological
Office])
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
19
21
23
01
03
05
07
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
01
03
05
07
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
01
Date and time CET
Precipitation in mm
Zinnwald-Georgenfeld
Dresden
Lichtenhain-Mittelndorf
11.08.
12.08.
13.08.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
–24.00
–12.00
0.00
12.00
24.00
36.00
Vereinigte Weißeritz 1897
Vereinigte Weißeritz 1927
Vereinigte Weißeritz 1957
Vereinigte Weißeritz 1958
Hainsberg 4 level gauge,
Vereinigte Weißeritz 2002
Hainsberg 3 level gauge,
Wilde Weißeritz 2002
Hainsberg 1 level gauge,
Rote Weißeritz 2002
Time in hours
Discharge rate in m
3
/s
The flood was caused by rainfall which was exceptional
in terms of intensity, duration and areal distribution. More
than 200 mm of rain fell in large parts of the Osterzgebirge
mountains in just three days: that’s between two and three
times as much as the average rainfall for the entire month of
August. However, the one-day values for rainfall in the peak
precipitation area, which was rather small, were very close to
the physically possible maximum (see Fig. 2).
Because of its geological condition and the moisture it already
contained, the soil was incapable of absorbing much water
and was quickly saturated. As a result, it could neither hold
water, nor delay discharge in any significant way. Con-
sequently, 60 to 90 per cent of the precipitation ran off in
many areas in a very short space of time. This led to dis-
charge rates far beyond any known values in almost all of the
investigated watercourses (see Fig. 3).

image
image
image
4
Fig. 6:
Lauenstein railway
station after the
flooding of the river
Müglitz in 1927
(photo: taken from
POHL, 2003)
Similar damage as a result of sediment and drift wood etc. are documented for all
major historic floods in the Osterzgebirge mountains. However, solid material pro-
cesses only become relevant when the flow rate exceeds a certain limit, which leads
to massive overbank flow. In such cases, damage increases drastically.
In terms of its areal extension, inten-
sity of discharge, and solid material
displacement, the August flood must
be classified as an extreme event.
Several hundred thousand cubic metres of sediment were
moved in the most heavily affected streams,the Weißeritz and
the Müglitz.The main sources of material included collapsing
revetment walls and their backfill, road and railroad embank-
ments, as well as artificial and semi-natural reinforcements
made of unconsolidated material. The material was mostly
transported over short distances and deposited either in
shallow sections with little transport capacity or in front of
obstructions such as bridges. Transport processes consider-
ably modified the river beds, even entire channels were
displaced. The flow capacities of river cross-sections and at
bridges were exceeded almost across the entire region. As a
result, large areas, and in particular villages and towns, were
flooded.
Fig. 4: Complete erosion of the railroad embankment in the valley of
the river Müglitz.The exposed old retaining wall, which used to give
the stream a much wider bed, is noteworthy (photo: LTV [State Dam
Management Office], 2002).
Fig. 5:
Choked and
damaged bridge
in the valley of
the river Müglitz–
temporary bridge
in Schlottwitz,
upstream from the
confluent Trebnitz-
bach stream
(photo: LTV, 2002).

image
 
20%
3%
42%
11%
12%
10%
1%
1%
Damage to private property
Damage to municipal property
Public property
Federal and state roads
Deutsche Bahn
Hydraulic installations
Forestry
Agriculture
Fig. 7:
Flood damage
distribution by
damage class
in the area under
investigation
Fig. 8:
Destroyed building
and channel dis-
placement of the
Rote Weißeritz in
Schmiedeberg
(photo: GOTTFRIED
HEROLD, 2002)
5
Damage
Total damage for the area under investigation amounted to
over 1 billion euros. The Weißeritz and Müglitz valleys were
more affected than any other. Accounting for 60 per cent of
the total damage, municipalities and private property were
worst hit by the flooding.The traffic arteries, which often run
alongside the watercourses, were also badly affected.
Although the region flooded by these watercourses only
represents 8.5 per cent of all flooded areas in Saxony, it
accounts for 15 per cent of the financial loss and 60 per cent
of the casualties in the area. This was due not only to the
region’s vicinity of the peak precipitation area, but also to
the characteristics of the processes in the mountain streams
investigated for this report.
The affected communities suffered an average property loss
of ten per cent of the total assets in the flooded area. This
figure rises as high as 20 per cent for the communities in the
valleys of the Müglitz and Weißeritz rivers. Almost half of the
flooded areas were settlement areas.This illustrates the great
pressure in the valleys to utilise available space for settle-
ments. The great proportion of damaged property to total
assets clearly demonstrates that there are conflicts between
human use and the spatial requirements of the watercourses.

image
image
Fig. 10:
The river
Müglitz down-
stream from
Weesenstein
castle (photo:
STEFAN HÄSS-
LER, 2002)
6
Fig. 9:
Removal of debris
in Tharandt on
18 August 2002
(photo: RAINER
ELZE, 2002)
Total damage for the area under investi-
gation amounts to over 1 billion euros.
Almost half of the flooded areas were
settlement areas. This explains why the
damage in the municipal and private
sectors was particularly high. This flood
highlighted the conflicts between
human use of the valleys and the spatial
requirements of the watercourses.
Catchment
area
Loss
in million
euros
Proportion
in %
Biela
24
2
Gottleuba 89 8
Müglitz
201
17
Lockwitzbach
87
7
Rote Weißeritz
181
15
Wilde Weißeritz
93
8
Vereinigte
Weißeritz
366
31
Wilde Sau
10
1
Triebisch
103
9
Ketzerbach
22
2
Total:
1176
100
Table 1:
Total damage by
catchment area

image
 
7
Fig. 12:
Statistical classi-
fication of the flood
in August 2002
Classification of events
The analysis showed that the flood of the left bank tributaries
of the Upper Elbe in 2002 cannot be classified as a 1:10,000
year event or even a maximum possible flood (see Fig. 11).
In the Biela catchment and in the neighbouring eastern part of
the Gottleuba catchment the August flood is classified as a
1:50 or 1:100 year event. In the western part of the Gottleuba
catchment and in the adjoining Lockwitzbach catchment, the
August flood is classified as an event that only recurs every
100 to 200 years.The recurrence periods of the August flood
are generally longer in the lower reaches of the streams than
in their upper reaches.Whereas the 2002 flood in the Weiße-
ritz catchment is classified as a 1:100 year event in the upper
reaches, the recurrence period is increased noticeably down-
stream, where it is characterised as an event that recurs
about every 500 years max.Also in the lower reaches of the
Triebisch catchment, which borders the western part of the
Weißeritz catchment, the August flood is given a relatively
large recurrence period of 200 to 500 years. The recurrence
periods for the catchments of the Wilde Sau and Ketzerbach
streams are smaller again, namely 50 to 100 years.
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1
10
100
1000
A
Eo
in km
2
HHq acc. to WUNDT
mmHq acc. to DYCK et al.
Hq(2002)
Specific discharge in l/(skm
2
)
Fig. 11: Comparison of the specific discharge during the August flood Hq (2002) and the
envelope curves of maximum known discharge volumes world-wide (according to WUNDT)
and in southern Saxony and Thuringia (according to DYCK)

image
image
image
Although the flood of August 2002
has a statistical recurrence period
of 100 to 500 years in the individual
catchment areas, a diachronic analysis
shows that similar events must be
expected in all of the investigated
watercourses at any time. The anal-
ysis of the flood shows that the
August flood was not an event of
the magnitude of a greatest possible
event.
Flood events that are as severe as or
even worse than the one in August
2002 cannot therefore be ruled out in
the future.
8
the catchment areas, but the fact that all areas were hit
simultaneously.
The watercourses in the Osterzgebirge region–the Gottleuba,
the Müglitz and the Weißeritz–have seen at least three com-
parable flood events since the late 19th century.
A comparison of historical floods before systematic measure-
ments were initiated shows that similar events have occurred
in all of the catchment areas under investigation in the past.
However, in most cases, only some of the streams were
affected simultaneously. What made the flood of August 2002
so exceptional was not so much its severe impact on each of
Fig. 13:
Damaged wing of
the Löbtau town hall
after the flooding of
the river Weißeritz
in 1897 (photo:
LfUG [State Office
for Environment
and Geology])
Fig. 14:
Town of Berggieß-
hübel in the valley of
the river Gottleuba:
on the first Sunday
after the 1927 flood
(photo: taken from
MARSCHNER, 1927)
Fig. 15:
Town of Pirna
after the river
Gottleuba flooded
in 1957 (photo: LTV)

image
image
 
9
Fig.17: Spillway of the Malter dam on 13 August 2002 (photo: LTV, 2002)
Effectiveness of flood control measures
incapable of coping with the volume of water, have been
identified in almost all affected settlements. For example,
some one-third of all bridges in the settlement areas are too
small to cope with a hundred-year flood (HQ[100]). Quite apart
from the consideration of the above-mentioned bottlenecks,
the current development of the river beds in several places is
not enough to discharge anything more than a HQ(20).
The watercourses in the region under investigation are almost
completely channelled and the banks consolidated in the settle-
ment areas, and partly so outside the settlement areas.
Dams, bridges and other structures along the channels reduce
the discharge capacity considerably in places.Bottlenecks,i.e.
places where the available discharge profile was completely
Fig. 16:
Road bridge over
the Triebisch
stream in Meißen,
max. flow rate
with no freeboard
approx. HQ(50)
(photo: LUKAS
HUNZINGER, 2003)
The catchments of the Gottleuba, the Lockwitzbach and the
Weißeritz have one or several flood retention reservoirs and
dams with flood control function. Even though their limit
capacity was exceeded, and water ran over the spillways,
these facilities considerably delayed the discharge. For this
reason and because the areas below the dams and reservoirs
were also hit by heavy rain, the flood control facilities were
unable to prevent widespread major damage.
A large part of the flow profiles and
embankments proved to be too small
to be able to cope with the loads
exerted on them by the August 2002
event. Many of them were badly
damaged, some were destroyed.

image
 
10
Requirements for future flood control
the Saxon Water Act. The hazard analysis must, where
possible, include all relevant processes and should not
be restricted solely to the water discharge.A framework of
landscape planning and statutory provisions would signifi-
cantly boost the implementation of the proposed concepts.
Hazards in the form of high stream velocities, even outside
the riverbed, must also be taken into consideration. A pro-
tection concept that is based on water levels and water
discharge alone is insufficient.
Adequate space must be provided for watercourses. In
addition to discharge rates, hazards in the form of erosion,
sedimentation and flotsam must be taken into account
when planning protective measures and defining polder
areas.
The scope of damage seen during the August 2002 flood
must be drastically reduced in possible future events of like
dimension. In particularly, it must have highest priority to
save lives. A complete prevention of any financial loss, how-
ever,
is neither feasible in technical nor in economical terms.
The amount of the remaining financial risks which must be
borne can be derived from a cost-benefit analysis of the
required flood control measures. The required measures
target both the reduction of exposure and the decrease
of
the potential scope of damage.
The aforementioned flood control concepts and the hazard
maps enclosed therein form the technical basis for planning
and implementing the above-mentioned measures. This is
already taken into account in the current amendment of
Fig. 18:
Detail of the
hazard map of
the Schlottwitz
municipality

image
image
11
Flooding hazards are indicated in hazard maps. The hazard analysis must include
any relevant processes and should not be restricted to the water discharge alone.
The stated hazardous processes shall be taken into account in landscaping by
providing adequate flood plains with usage restrictions.
Ample cross-sections must be created, and areas for the deposition of sediment and
flotsam must be developed.
The damage potential must be minimised; at the very
least, the observed trend towards developing property in
hazard areas must be stopped. These stipulations obviously
lead to land use conflicts, which need to be debated in
public in the context of flood control. In order to be able
to face future flood hazards, landscape planning and land
use must be adapted and differentiated, and building regu-
lations complied with.
Ample cross-sections must be created, and areas for the
deposition of sediment and flotsam must be provided at
suitable locations. The dimensions of hydraulic structures
must be such that they are capable of withstanding major
floods and do not have an adverse effect on hydraulic pro-
cesses.
Hazards can only be controlled to a certain degree. More
importance must be attached to the decentralised reten-
Fig. 19: Destroyed revetment of the Müglitz stream in Glashütte, 2002
(photo: LTV, 2002)
Fig. 20: Same revetment of the Müglitz stream in Glashütte, 2004
(photo: LTV, 2004)
tion of discharge volumes, in particular by purposefully in-
fluencing the land use in the catchment areas.
Flood retention reservoirs will need to be constructed at
several locations in order to ensure sufficient protection.
However, as regards the existing settlements in the Müg-
litz and Rote Weißeritz valleys in particular,it would appear
that justifiable expenditure will not be enough to provide
effective protection against a HQ(100) in the municipalities
themselves.
In the event of a catastrophe, good emergency planning
is imperative for operative flood protection. Every munici-
pality must therefore have detailed flood alert plans ready,
and ensure that their fire brigades are prepared and ready
for action. Flood forecasts and their rapid and reliable dis-
semination are other important aspects when it comes to
launching such defence measures.

 
12
Conclusions for the flood information service
Several weaknesses in the flood information and reporting
system were revealed during the August flood, some of them
caused by a widely ramified reporting structure. There were
numerous instances of delays and interruptions in the flow of
information. Fire brigades, other rescue institutions, and civil
protection offices were not always given sufficient notice to
plan and implement more effective flood control measures
in time. In addition to a breakdown of several measuring
stations, the situation was compounded by the fact that some
of the actual discharge rates vastly exceeded the reference
values for alert phase 4. Standard routines, which focused
mainly on more frequent, smaller floods, were not able to cope
with this situation. The way in which the flood co-ordination
office and local offices dealt with the August 2002 flood was
further complicated by the lack of experience with a flood of
that size.The redevelopment of the flood information service
concept aims to provide better information about impending
flood situations and the development of an existing flood
situation. The future flood reporting and information chain is
illustrated in Fig. 21.
-
-
Landeshochwasserzentrum
Information
platform
Internet, videotex,
telephone
Precipitation
information
Weather
forecasts
Water level
information
Flood level
information
Dam moni-
toring centre
Flood alerts/
Flood alert clearing
Media
TV, radio,
press
Express flood
message service
(SMS)
[State Flood Control Office]
Rural districts
District towns
Regional
Councils
Municipalities
Fire Brigade
Selected
third parties
The improvement of the flood information service in
Saxony will be based on the improved operational relia-
bility of the water level recorders, redundant data trans-
mission routes, and optimised organisational structures.
The intention is to forward all information directly to the
individual municipalities.
The incorporation of additional data, such as information
about precipitation and damage recorded in the catchment
areas, will improve the quality of flood alert messages.
The newly established shift system in the co-ordination
office takes into account the short response times in
the catchment areas under investigation. The operators
receive warnings of heavy rain and such information is
immediately assessed in the context of the current water
levels in the State Flood Control Office (LHWZ). In the small
catchments of the Upper Elbe tributaries, it takes only a
few hours for heavy rain to affect the discharge rates in the
streams (see Fig. 23).
Fig. 21:
Future reporting
and information
chain for flood-
related messages
in the Free State
of Saxony

image
13
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Precipitation in mm/h
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Discharge rate in m
3
/s
Precipitation, Döntschen
Müglitz/Weesenstein
12.08.
12.08.
13.08.
13.08.
14.08.
14.08.
15.08.
00:00
12:00
00:00
12:00
00:00
12:00
00:00
Flood damage
6 hours
Fig. 23:
Hydrograph curve
of the river Müglitz
in the Weesenstein
area and the delay
until flood damage
occurred
Fig. 22:
Saxon State Flood
Control Office
Flood projections with a long forecast horizon for these regions
are mainly based on precipitation forecasts.They cannot, there-
fore, be more accurate than the precipitation forecasts. The
German Meteorological Office (DWD) and other institutions are
conducting extensive research into the improvement of local
forecasts. Catchment-specific flood alerts will only become
possible once improved precipitation forecasts are available.
Precise precipitation values, which are due to be available
from May 2005, will make short-term forecasts more
accurate and will allow for speedier dissemination. To-
gether with all measured actual values and other data from
the information platform that is currently being developed,
the municipalities in the small catchment areas of the
Upper Elbe tributaries will have the best possible informa-
tion at their disposal when making flood control decisions.
The municipalities must combine this information with lo-
cal information about blockages and sediment depositions
to independently implement concrete flood protection
measures. Prepared and regularly reviewed flood alert
plans will be the most important basis for this work.At the
same time, the municipalities must consider how the local
observations can be integrated into the information plat-
form and thereby be made available to a restricted group
of bodies, e.g. the downstream municipalities, the local
flood control offices, and the State Flood Control Office.
Based on a reliable and up-to-date
emergency plan, the fast and reliable
dissemination of flood forecasts is a
vital part of triggering flood protection
measures. Naturally, saving lives has
the highest priority when it comes to
exceptional events.

 
14
Flood control in Saxony: a summary
Flooding hazards are indicated in hazard maps.The hazard
analysis required for these maps must include all relevant
processes and should not be restricted solely to the water
discharge. The stated hazardous processes must be taken
into account in landscaping by providing adequate flood
plains with usage restrictions. The planning of operative
flood protection can also be based on these hazard maps.
Smaller and medium-sized floods can be reduced and their
effects minimised by improving natural retention in the
catchment areas and, where necessary, by implementing
technical flood control measures. In the event of an extra-
ordinary flood like the one that occurred in August 2002,
the top priority is to save lives with the help of quick and
targeted flood alerts and consequential flood control
measures. Although material damage can be limited by
technical flood control measures, compliance with building
laws, timely warnings and on-site flood defence, it must
be put up with to some extent. Small catchment areas
(A
Eo
< 500 km
2
) still remain problematic because of the
short response times involved.
In terms of its areal extension, intensity of discharge, and
solid material displacement, the August flooding of the
watercourses in the Osterzgebirge mountains must be
classified as an extreme event. A large part of the cross-
sections and embankments proved to be too small to cope
with the loads exerted on them. Many of them were badly
damaged or destroyed. Similar damage as a result of sedi-
ment and flotsam in these rivers has been documented for
all major historic floods in the Osterzgebirge mountains.The
historical analysis shows that events like those in August
2002 can be expected on all rivers. However, the analysis of
the flood also demonstrates that the August flood was not
an event of the magnitude of a greatest possible flood.This
is why flood events in that area as severe or even worse
than that in August 2002 cannot be ruled out in the future.
The total damage in the area under investigation amounts to
more than 1 billion euros.This once more demonstrates the
vulnerability of our living environment in the event of a flood
like the one in August 2002, and highlights the conflicts
between human use and the spatial requirements of the
watercourses. In those places where settlements, transport
routes and other developed spaces overlap with hazard
areas, natural processes can cause extreme damage.
Knowledge about the hazards in the area under investigation
is a prerequisite for a purposeful and efficient implementation
of protective measures.
Flood protection can be substantially improved in the Free State of Saxony by con-
sistently implementing the above-mentioned concept development, constructional
and organisational measures.
It is important to note, however, that even the best flood control scheme cannot
prevent a flood, it can only minimise its effects. Any potentially affected people
can also make a substantial contribution to diminishing the extent of the damage.
This is why it is vital that the Saxon authorities raise awareness of the flooding
hazards among the population to ensure that all possibilities of reducing damage
are exhausted.

 
Publisher’s information
Event analysis – August 2002 flood in the watercourses
of the Osterzgebirge mountains
Management Report
Title photograph:
Confluence of Pöbelbach and Rote Weißeritz in Schmiedeberg
on 13 August 2002
Photo: Olaf Rentsch
Publisher:
Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie
(LfUG, Saxon State Office for Environment and Geology)
Public Relations
Zur Wetterwarte 11, 01109 Dresden, Germany
E-mail:
Abteilung1@lfug.smul.sachsen.de
(no acceptance of electronically
signed and encrypted electronic documents)
Project management:
Heinz Gräfe, Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie (LfUG)
Project co-ordination:
Petra Walther, LfUG, Landeshochwasserzentrum (LHWZ)
Chief editors:
Petra Walther, LfUG, LHWZ
Scientific editors:
LfUG: Rainer Elze, Kristina Rieth, Petra Walther
LTV: Dr. Uwe Müller
WSL, Switzerland: Dr. Christoph Hegg, Franziska Schmid
Editorial deadline: May 2004
Design, layout, reproduction:
c-macs
publishingservice
Tannenstraße 2, 01099 Dresden, Germany
Translation:
Schweitzer Sprachendienst
Borstraße 31, 01445 Radebeul, Germany
Printing and distribution:
Saxoprint GmbH
Lingnerallee 3, 01069 Dresden, Germany
Fax: +49 351 4921-200 (Dispatch)
E-mail:
versand@saxoprint.de
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Purchase:
This publication can be obtained free of charge from Saxoprint GmbH.
Note:
This document is published in the context of public relations work of the
Saxon State Office for Environment and Geology (LfUG). It shall not be
used by political parties, their election workers and supporters for the pur-
pose of campaigning. This publication shall not be used in a context where
it could be understood as partisanship in favour of individual interest
groups, regardless of a temporal connection to election campaigns.
Political parties are allowed to use this publication to inform their members.
Copyright:
This publication is protected under the relevant copyright laws. All rights
reserved by the publisher, including the right to reprint and to reproduce
photo-mechanically this publication or parts thereof.
Sources:
Topographic maps 1:10,000 and general map of the Free State of Saxony
1:200,000, publication permitted by Landesvermessungsamt Sachsen,
permission no. 63/04-B
Any reproduction of these maps must be approved by Landesvermessungs-
amt Sachsen.
Works cited:
DYCK, S. et al. Angewandte Hydrologie. Berlin: VEB Verlag für Bauwesen,
1980.
MARSCHNER, G. “Wassernot im Oelsengrunde.” Mitteilungen des Landes-
vereins Sächsischer Heimatschutz 16 (1927): 397+. (Kreismuseum Dippoldis-
walde inventory no. 346).
POHL, R. Hochwasser im Erzgebirge in der Vergangenheit von der Gottleuba
bis zur Mulde. TU Dresden, Institut für Wasserbau und technische Hydro-
mechanik. Unpublished manuscript, 2003.
WUNDT, W. “Grenzwerte der Hochwasserspende und der mittleren Abfluß-
spende in Abhängigkeit von der Fläche.” Die Wasserwirtschaft 55 (1965): 1–5.
July 2004
Publication no. L II-1/27
Find Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie on the internet:
www.umwelt.sachsen.de/lfug
Find the Landeshochwasserzentrum on the internet:
www.umwelt.sachsen.de/lfug/wasser_hwz.html
This study was financially supported by the Swiss Agency for Development
and Co-operation (SDC).

image
image
The present Management Report is based on the detailed study “Event analysis –
August 2002 flood in the watercourses of the Osterzgebirge mountains”.
The complete analysis was published by the Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie
and can be obtained under the publication no. L II1-26 through Saxoprint GmbH.
It is only available in German.