DOCSLIB.ORG

Little Thompson River Hydrologic Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Little Thompson River Hydrologic Analysis Final Report Little Thompson River Hydrologic Analysis Phase 2: Little Thompson River above Big Thompson River Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation June 10, 2015 9191 S. Jamaica Street Englewood, CO 80112 Contents Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ES‐1 1.0 Purpose and Objective ................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Project Area Description ........................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.3 Effective Flood Insurance Studies .......................................................................................... 1‐1 1.4 Mapping ................................................................................................................................. 1‐2 1.5 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.6 Flood History .......................................................................................................................... 1‐3 1.6.1 Historic Flood Events ................................................................................................ 1‐3 1.6.2 September 2013 ....................................................................................................... 1‐3 2.0 Hydrologic Analyses .................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 Previous Studies ..................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.1 Hydrology Studies for the Big Thompson River and Little Thompson River (USACE, 1974) ........................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.2 Floodplain Information. Report Little Thompson River. Boulder and Larimer Counties (USACE, 1977a) ............................................................................. 2‐1 2.1.3 Summary of Hydrologic Analysis, Little Thompson River, Larimer County Colorado, Flood Insurance Study/Map Revision. Technical Support Data Notebook (Ayres, 2010) ............................................................................................ 2‐2 2.1.4 Little Thompson River Hydrology Analysis – I‐25 Frontage Road Mile Marker 249.847, Weld County, Colorado (CDOT, 2011) ........................................................ 2‐2 2.1.5 Little Thompson River Hydrology Analysis – Report of September 2013 Little Thompson River Flooding (CDWR Dam Safety, 2014) .............................................. 2‐3 2.1.6 Little Thompson River Hydrologic Analysis [Phase I] (CH2M HILL, 2014) ................. 2‐3 2.2 Stream Gage Analysis ............................................................................................................. 2‐3 2.3 Peak Discharge Estimates ...................................................................................................... 2‐4 2.4 Rainfall‐Runoff Modeling ....................................................................................................... 2‐6 2.4.1 Overall Modeling Approach ...................................................................................... 2‐6 2.4.2 Summary of Modeling Approaches Considered ....................................................... 2‐6 2.4.3 Basin Delineation ...................................................................................................... 2‐7 2.4.4 Basin Characterization .............................................................................................. 2‐7 2.4.5 Model Development ................................................................................................. 2‐8 2.4.6 Model Calibration ................................................................................................... 2‐11 2.4.7 Predictive Model Implementation .......................................................................... 2‐13 3.0 Hydrologic Model Results ........................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Estimate of Design Flow Magnitudes .................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Comparison to Previous Hydrologic Studies .......................................................................... 3‐2 3.2.1 Previous Hydrologic Studies Calibrated to September 2013 Event .......................... 3‐2 3.2.2 Previous Predictive Hydrologic Studies .................................................................... 3‐2 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 4‐1 4.1 Design Peak Discharge Magnitudes ....................................................................................... 4‐1 4.2 Assessment of September 2013 Event .................................................................................. 4‐2 5.0 References .................................................................................................................................. 5‐1 WT0213151026BOI III CONTENTS, CONTINUED Tables ES‐1 Little Thompson River Comparison of Modeled Discharges to Observed Discharges ES‐2 Estimate of the Recurrence Interval of the September 2013 Event 1 Data Collected for the Little Thompson River 2 Discharge‐Frequency Based on Flood Frequency Analysis of Gage Record 3 Little Thompson Physical‐Based Peak Discharge Observations 4 Depth‐Area Reduction Factors 5 Little Thompson River Comparison of Modeled Discharges to Observed Discharges 6 Comparison of Modeled Time‐to‐Peak to Observed Time‐to‐Peak 8 Little Thompson River Modeled 10‐,4,‐2,‐1, and 0.2‐Percent Chance Unit Peak Discharge 9 Calibrated Model Comparison 10 Comparison of Modeled 1 Percent Annual Chance Flow to Other Estimates 11 Proposed 10, 4, 2, 1, and 0.2 Percent Chance Peak Discharge 12 Estimate of the Recurrence Interval of the September 2013 Event Tables – Appendix B B‐1 24‐Hour Little Thompson Models: Hydrologic Zone, Subbasin Area, and Curve Number (CN) B‐2 Little Thompson River Rainfall Depths at Subbasin Centroids B‐3 5‐Minute Dimensionless 24‐Hr NRCS Type II Cumulative Rainfall Distribution B‐4 24‐Hour Little Thompson Models: Unit Hydrograph Parameters B‐5 24‐Hour Little Thompson Models: Routing Reach Parameters B‐6 Little Thompson River Land Use Conditions B‐7 Little Thompson River Proposed Model Results Summary Figures ES‐1 Little Thompson River Overview Map ES‐2 Little Thompson River Peak Discharge Profiles 1 Vicinity and Watershed Map 2 Little Thompson River Peak Discharge Estimate and Gage Locations 3 Phase 2 Connectivity Map 4 Phase 2 AWA 10‐Day Precipitation 5 NRCS 24‐Hour Type II Unit Hyetograph 6 24‐Hour Depth‐Area Reduction Factor (DARF) Curves 7 Phase 2 Land Use Map 8 Phase 2 Soils Map 9 Phase 2 Muskingum‐Cunge Eight‐Point Routing Cross Sections 10 Little Thompson September 2013 Rainfall 11 Hydrographs at Key Design Locations 12 Little Thompson River Peak Discharge Profiles 13 Comparison of Little Thompson River 1 Percent Chance Discharge Estimates vs. Drainage Area 14 1 Percent Annual Chance Peak Unit Discharge versus Subbasin Area Appendices A FEMA Information B Hydrologic Analysis and Parameters C Ayres Associates Flood Frequency Analysis D Project Correspondence and Response to Review Comments E September 2013 Peak Discharge Estimates Documentation F Drainage Area Reduction Factor Documentation G Digital Data (electronic only) IV WT0213151026BOI Acronyms and Abbreviations AMC Antecedent Moisture Condition AWA Applied Weather Associates CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDWR Colorado Division of Water Resources cfs cubic feet per second CN curve number CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board DARF depth‐Area reduction factor FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Flood Insurance Study GIS geographic information system HEC‐HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling System I‐25 Interstate 25 LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LULC Land Use and Land Cover NED National Elevation Dataset NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service PMR Physical Map Revision QC quality control SCS Soil Conservation Service SH State Highway SPAS Storm Precipitation Analysis System US 36 U.S. Route 36 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey WT0213151026BOI V I hereby affirm that this report and hydrologic analysis for the Little Thompson River was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, for the owners thereof, in accordance with the current provisions of the Colorado Floodplain and Stormwater Criteria Manual, and approved variances and exceptions thereto. Signature: CH2M HILL June 10, 2015 Morgan Lynch, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 44653 (seal) This Document Prepared by: Management Review Preparation Team Technical Support Cory Hooper, PE Morgan Lynch, PE Brad Bettag, PE CH2M HILL CH2M HILL CH2M HILL
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ROCKY MOUNTAIN National Park CO LO 1^^.00
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN National Park CO LO 1^^.00 UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL PARK. SERIES Copyright by WiswaU The Village of Estes Park nestles in a quiet little valley, surrounded by mountains Page two An Appreciation of Rocky Mountain National Park By ENOS A. MILLS, Author of "Wild Life on the Rockies," "The Rocky Mountain Wonderland," etc. Written Especially fer the United States Railroad Administration j]HE Rocky Mountain National Park is a marvelous grouping of gentle­ ness and grandeur; an eloquent, wordless hymn, sung in silent, poetic pictures; a wilderness mountain world of groves and grass plots, crags and canyons, rounded lakes with shadow-matted shores that rest in peace within the purple forest. There are wild flowers of every color, and many a silken meadow edged with ferns. Brokenness and beauty, terrace upon terrace, a magnificent hanging wild garden. Over these terraces waters rush and pour. From ice-sculptured, snow-piled peaks, young and eager streams leap in white cascades between crowding cliffs and pines. Through this wildness winds the trail, with its secrets of the centuries, where adventures come and go and where the magic camp fire blossoms in the night. In these primeval scenes the grizzly bear gives to the wilderness its master spell; the mountain ram poses on the cliff; the laughing, varied voice of the coyote echoes when the afterglow falls; the home-loving beaver builds his willow-fringed hut; the birds sing; the cheerful chipmunk frolics and never grows up; and here the world stays young. The Rocky Mountain National Park holds adventure for every visitor.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/228 ON THE COVER Rocky Mountain National Park Photograph by: Billy Schweiger A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/228 David M. Theobald1,2 Jill S. Baron2,3 Peter Newman1 Barry Noon4 John B. Norman III1,2 Ian Leinwand1 Sophia E. Linn1 Richard Sherer4 Katherine E. Williams2,5 Melannie Hartman2 1Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1480 2Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499 3U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO 80523 4Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1474 5Current address: Department of Biology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 This report was prepared under Task Order J2380060103 (Cooperative Agreement #H1200040001) July 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Lawn Lake Flood Interpretive Area (Elevation 8,640 Ft)
    1 NCSS Conference 2001 Field Tour -- Colorado Rocky Mountains Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:00 AM Depart Ft. Collins Marriott 8:30 Arrive Rocky Mountain National Park Lawn Lake Flood Interpretive Area (elevation 8,640 ft) 8:45 "Soil Survey of Rocky Mountain National Park" - Lee Neve, Soil Survey Project Leader, Natural Resources Conservation Service 9:00 "Correlation and Classification of the Soils" - Thomas Hahn, Soil Data Quality Specialist, MLRA Office 6, Natural Resources Conservation Service 9:15-9:30 "Interpretive Story of the Lawn Lake Flood" - Rocky Mountain National Park Interpretive Staff, National Park Service 10:00 Depart 10:45 Arrive Alpine Visitors Center (elevation 11,796 ft) 11:00 "Research Needs in the National Parks" - Pete Biggam, Soil Scientist, National Park Service 11:05 "Pedology and Biogeochemistry Research in Rocky Mountain National Park" - Dr. Eugene Kelly, Colorado State University 11:25 - 11:40 "Soil Features and Geologic Processes in the Alpine Tundra"- Mike Petersen and Tim Wheeler, Soil Scientists, Natural Resources Conservation Service Box Lunch 12:30 PM Depart 1:00 Arrive Many Parks Curve Interpretive Area (elevation 9,620 ft.) View of Valleys and Glacial Moraines, Photo Opportunity 1:30 Depart 3:00 Arrive Bobcat Gulch Fire Area, Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest 3:10 "Fire History and Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Efforts" - Carl Chambers, U. S. Forest Service 3:40 "Involvement and Interaction With the Private Sector"- Todd Boldt; District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 4:10 "Current Research on the Fire" - Colorado State University 4:45 Depart 6:00 Arrive Ft. Collins Marriott 2 3 Navigator’s Narrative Tim Wheeler Between the Fall River Visitors Center and the Lawn Lake Alluvial Debris Fan: This Park, or open grassy area, is called Horseshoe Park and is the tail end of the Park’s largest valley glacier.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Studies for Stream Restoration
    Flood Potential in the Southern Rocky Mountains Region Steven Yochum, PhD, PE Big Thompson River & US-34 Hydrologist U.S. Forest Service National Stream and Aquatic Ecology Center Fort Collins, Colorado Flood Potential in the Southern Rocky Mountains Region Collaborators: Drake, Colorado Julian A. Scott (Image source: NRCS exigent EWP) U.S. Forest Service National Stream and Aquatic Ecology Center Fort Collins, Colorado David H. Levinson, PhD U.S. Forest Service National Stream and Aquatic Ecology Center Fort Collins, Colorado Overview of Problem • Common flood analysis procedures do not facilitate a number of needs, such as: • Verification of at-a-station flood-frequency and regional regression analyses results • Quantifiable procedure for identifying and ranking extreme floods • Clear comparisons of how flood magnitudes and hazards vary across regions • Simple language for communicating expected flood hazards with the public and land managers Estes Park, Colorado Potential Solution • A space-for-time substitution can be utilized to address these needs. Procedure: • Regressions of record peak discharges at long-term streamgages used to predict the expected flood potential (across zones of similar flood response) • Upper 90% prediction limit provides the maximum likely flood potential (floods greater than this limit defined as extreme) • Paleoflood data and shorter streamgage records can be utilized • Flood hazards can easily be compared between zones (using developed indices) • Seasonality and trend analyses can be performed (currently
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Dedication and Acknowledgements............................................................................ 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3 Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 5 Alpine Environments...................................................................................................................................................5 Flooding......................................................................................................................................................................5 Hydrogeology .............................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resources Evaluation
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2004/004 THIS PAGE: Ypsilon Mountain, Rocky Mountain NP. ON THE COVER: Alpine Tundra looking west to the Never Summer Range, Rocky Mountain NP Photos by: NPS and Josh Heise Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2004/004 Geologic Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 September 2004 U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Grand Ditch Report Rocky Mountain National Park, CO ______Covey Potter and Dr
    Final Grand Ditch Report Rocky Mountain National Park, CO _________________________________ Covey Potter and Dr. David Cooper BACKGROUND In 2003 the Grand Ditch, located on the east-facing slope of the Never Summer Range within Rocky Mountain National Park, breached in a reach above Lulu Creek; inundating the creek, several km of the Colorado River and its floodplains, and the Lulu City wetland with more than 36,000 m3 of sediment and debris (RMNP Fact Sheet 2010) (Figure 1 in appendix 3). Sediment deposits from this event have altered stream channels, flood plains, streamside water table, and riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation is sensitive to alterations in groundwater, limiting the establishment of critical plant species, shifting species composition, affecting ecosystem functions, and causing die back and mortality (Rood and Mahoney 1990, Smith et al. 1991, Dixon and Johnson 1999). Riparian vegetation composition is determined in part by available shallow groundwater (Brinson et al. 1985, Van Coller et al. 2000) that may be linked to stream water (Rood et al. 2003, Cooper and Merritt in press). STUDY AREA The restoration study site is in western Rocky Mountain National Park along the headwaters of the Colorado River, its tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. The Kawuneeche valley ranges from 2,700 – 3,100 m above sea level and is flanked by two mountain ranges that rise 1,200 m above the valley floor. The Never Summer Mountains to the west were formed by a now-extinct volcanic chain. With most of the volcanic rock eroded away, igneous granitic and metamorphic formations dominate covered by an extensive lateral moraine from Pleistocene glaciations and areas of unstable hydrologically-altered welded tuff.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Application Document
    IDYLWILDE HYROELECTRIC PROJECT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT NO. P-2829 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Submitted by LOVELAND WATER AND POWER CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO FEBRUARY 7, 2011 IDYLWILDE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT NO. P-2829 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT FEBRUARY 7, 2011 Submitted by LOVELAND WATER AND POWER CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO Ralph Mullinix, Director Steve Adams, Manager, Water Utilities Bruno Lopez, Superintendent, Technical Services Larry Howard, Senior Civil Engineer/Water Resources Technical and Environmental Contractors: Water Consult, Loveland, Colorado ERO Resources Corporation, Denver, Colorado Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado IDYLWILDE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC LICENSE P-2829 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1-1 2.0 Project Description, Related Permits, and Relicensing Plan 2-1 2.1 Project Description………………………………………………………...…. 2-1 2.1.1 Existing FERC License…………………………………………… 2-1 2.1.2 Idylwilde Dam, Penstock and Reservoir………………………...... 2-1 2.1.3 Current Operations……………………………………………....... 2-3 2.2 Related Permits…………………………………………………………....…. 2-3 2.2.1 U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit………………………...… 2-3 2.2.2 State of Colorado Water Quality Certification………………….... 2-4 2.3 Relicensing Plan and Process…………………………………………...……. 2-4 2.4 References……………………………………………………………………. 2-5 3.0 Existing Environment and Resource Impacts 3-1 3.1 Geology and Soils………………………………………………………….…. 3-1 3.1.1 Existing Environment……………………………………………... 3-1 3.1.2 Geology…………………………………………………………… 3-1 3.1.2.1 Regional Geology…………………………………………. 3-1 3.1.2.2 Geologic Resources……………………………………….. 3-2 3.1.3 Soils……………………………………………………………….. 3-2 3.1.4 Project Area Conditions…………………………………………... 3-3 3.1.5 Potential Impacts………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Assessing Vegetation
    THESIS ASSESSING VEGETATION REESTABLISHMENT ON DISTURBED HIGH MOUNTAIN LAKESHORES FOLLOWING HISTORIC DAM REMOVAL IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, COLORADO, USA Submitted by Amy C. Goodrich Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Spring 2016 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Mark Paschke Co-advisor: Paul Meiman David A. Steingraeber Jayne Jonas-Bratten Copyright by Amy C. Goodrich 2016 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT ASSESSING VEGETATION REESTABLISHMENT ON DISTURBED HIGH MOUNTAIN LAKESHORES FOLLOWING HISTORIC DAM REMOVAL IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, COLORADO, USA Dam removal has entered the public spotlight in recent years, due to growing safety, economic, and environmental concerns related to dams. Removal is increasingly seen as a way to address not only the risks associated with aging and/or obsolete dams, but also as a tool for ecological restoration. In 1982, then-79-year-old Lawn Lake Dam in Rocky Mountain National Park failed, resulting in three deaths, and extensive monetary damages and destruction of natural resources within the Park. This was followed by a policy decision to remove three dams in the Park between 1988 and 1990, returning the former reservoirs to their previous natural lake water levels, and re-exposing nearly 13 hectares of scoured shoreline, completely denuded of vegetation by approximately 80 years of inundation. The disturbed lakeshore areas were left to undergo passive restoration. In the years immediately following dam removal, one short-term (3 year) revegetation study was conducted at Lawn Lake, and informal observational data were gathered by NPS personnel at a handful of plots established at the disturbed lakeshores of Bluebird, Sandbeach, and Pear Lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Surface Water Issues ~ 2013”
    2013 Watershed Conference ~ THE FUTURE OF WATER QUALITY IS IN OUR HANDS ~ "Critical Surface Water Issues ~ 2013” Big Thompson River ~ Rocky Mountain National Park, CO ISLAND GROVE REGIONAL PARK Greeley, Colorado Thursday, February 28, 2013 Our mission is to protect and improve water quality in the Big Thompson River Watershed through collaborative monitoring, assessment, outreach, and restoration projects. 2 Conference Agenda Thursday, February, 28, 2013 (8:00 AM - 4:00 PM) 8:00 AM Registration and Continental Breakfast 8:30 AM Opening Remarks and Forum Update - John Matis and Zack Shelley Session I Panel: 'Agriculture Water Sharing & Development, Ecosystem Initiatives in Northern Colorado and Sylvan Dale Guest Ranch Nutrient Pilot Project' 9:00-10:00 George Wallace, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University and AM Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board David Jessup, General Partner and Owner, Sylvan Dale Guest Ranch Zack Shelley, Program Director, The Forum 10:00-10:30 Break & Refreshments AM Session II Panel: 'Wildfire Effects on our Water Quality, Wildlife and Watershed Management' 10:30 -11:30 John Stednick, Ph.D., Professor, Warner College of Natural Resources, AM Colorado State University Daniel Baker, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University Brad Piehl, Principal and Partner, JW Associates Keynote Speaker, Patricia Limerick, Ph.D., "A Ditch in Time - The City, the West, 11:30 AM - and Water." Dr. Limerick is a Professor of History at the University of Colorado
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Effects of the Lawn Lake Flood of 1982, Rocky Mountain National Park
    wi2-o issc^rce room 1 ^omo Please do not remove r^e^. this item from ^teiMes> Resource Room Ecological Effects of the Lawn Lake Flood of 1982, Rocky Mountain National Park Scientific Monograph NPS/NRROMO/NRSM-93/2 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service The National Park Service publishes scientific studies of significant natural resources in units of the National Park System. This research is of scholarly quality and may include any discipline of the biological, physical, or social sciences. Editorial Staff Fish and Wildlife Service Paul A. Opler Managing Editor Paul A. Vohs Subject Editor National Park Service Donna L. O'Leary Publications Coordinator Jerry D. Cox Technical Editor Suzanne D. Hardy Editorial Assistant Martha W. Nichols Editorial Assistant Cover Photo: A backdrop of mountains in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, highlights the alluvial fan created by the Lawn Lake flood. Copies of this report are available from the Publications Coordinator, National Park Service, Natural Resources Publication Office, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225- 0287. ISSN 0363-0722 fig* NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WATER RESOURCES DIVISION ;* FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ^3 RESOURCE ROOM PROPERTY Ecological Effects of the Lawn Lake Flood of 1982, Rocky Mountain National Park Editors Henry E. McCutchen Northern Arizona University Cooperative Park Studies Unit Flagstaff, Arizona 86011 Raymond Herrmann National Park Service Colorado State University Water Resources Cooperative Park Studies Unit ' Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 David R. Stevens 1 ^ Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Scientific Monograph NPS/NRROMO/NRSM-93/21 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service •1993- 'Present address: National Park Service Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, Alaska 99503.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT OFOPERATIONSILENTANZAC Peter Briggs Terence Roach Tim Smith Name
    Report REPORT OF OPERATION SILENT ANZAC MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF HMAS AE2 Name Position Prepared Tim Smith Maritime Archaeologist By: Approved Terence Roach Director of Operations By: Authorised Peter Briggs Chairman AE2CF By: 1 KEY OUTCOMES 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 REPORT OF OPERATION SILENT ANZAC 14 ANNEX A - PROJECT BACKGROUND, PREVIOUS WORK 54 ANNEX B - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, SIA ACTIVITY 58 ANNEX C - TEAM MEMBERS 62 ANNEX D - SPONSORS 64 ANNEX E - CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT 66 Appendix 1 to ANNEX E - Physical Oceanography 10SEP07 91 Appendix 2 to ANNEX E - Site stabilisation post MAA 94 ANNEX F – ROV, DROP CAMERA & SEABED PENETROMETER 98 Appendix 1 to ANNEX F - Drop Camera Inspection 136 ANNEX G – STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 146 Appendix 1 to ANNEX G - Sample Sites 152 ANNEX H - UPDATE TO THE RISK – UNEXPLODED TORPEDO 154 Appendix 1 to ANNEX H - Risk Tree 161 Appendix 2 to ANNEX H - Water Penetration into the Torpedo 162 2 KEY OUTCOMES • The objectives of the MAA were achieved. • The submarine is lying in a low corrosion environment. • The pressure hull is in a good state of preservation though a more detailed survey would be required to both confirm this impression and support full scale recovery. • Before either moving or raising additional data would be required. • The remaining torpedo must be located and the risk from its warhead removed before any effort to move the submarine is made. • The casing and fin have suffered significant deterioration arising from corrosion and impact by nets and anchors. • Development of options for future management is now proceeding. • The joint workshop in Istanbul in April 2008 is intended to provide a recommended way ahead.
    [Show full text]