Laserfiche WebLink
<br />HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF THE FLOOD <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br /> <br />FIGURE 12.-Lawn Lake about 1 week after the dam failure. showing the _t of water still ,.....,.lni'1g in the natural <br />depression forming the originallske (aeriall. <br /> <br />VELOCITIES, DEPTHS, W1D1"HS, AND AREAS <br /> <br />velocities, particularly on the Roaring River and the Fall <br />River immediately below Cascade Lake dam, increased <br />the flood's capacity to erode and transport sediment, <br />resulting in severe channe1 erosion and transport of debris <br />and streambed material (fig. 10). No direct flow velocities <br />were available; however, average velocities, ranging from <br />3.3 ftls to 12.6 ftls computed by indirect-discharge <br />methods and based on model results, are shown in table 4. <br /> <br />the respective volumes (such as surveying and mapping <br />errors) and estimates of nonflood inflow to Lake Estes <br />also may have contributed to these differences. <br /> <br />The most destructive components of the flood were <br />high shear stresses and high flow velocities. These high <br /> <br /> TABLE 4.-Peak flow ciat4 at .elected cro.. .ections <br />Db,""" c.... <br />- A...... M_ - <br />_La~ velocity.- depth. Top .....in <br />lAke dam. 1Dfeet; in width, ....... <br />in miles "" ...""d .... infetto leo' <br />0.55 b 8.0 b23.8 185 ',070 <br />1.50 b11.3 b18.6 97 b 1,340 <br />3.83 b 9.9 b14.0 348 1.270 <br />5.36 3.6 9.0 927 2,980 <br />5.78 3.3 7.9 1,112 2.250 <br />6.50 4.6 10.1 328 b 1,560 <br />7.68 bll.2 bl0,8 148 1,170 <br />7.74 12.6 9.9 227 1,020 <br />8.78 12.1 10.6 170 910 <br />10.28 12.0 7.8 175 710 <br />11.45 7.4 6.4 336 880 <br />12.50 6.8 10.5 99 810 <br />aBaaed on the peak diseharp profile irl figure 11, <br />bSevere chllllMl eroeloa m8Y bave Influenced valu. <br /> <br />3'6' <br />