My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD08727
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
FLOOD08727
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:15:23 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 3:49:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Routt
Community
Unincorporated Routte County
Stream Name
Lower Elk River
Basin
Yampa/White
Title
1997 Lower Elk River Flood Field Iinspection Report
Date
2/17/1998
Prepared For
Routt County Unincorporated
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Flood Documentation Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ ;;.:; <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />Mr. William Horak, Jr. <br /> <br />estimated by Mr. Carver to have a 12-year flood frequency. The information in the Corps letter <br />was quite surprising to our staff. <br /> <br />Due to the low variability of Colorado's mountain streamflows (which are predominantly driven <br />by snowmelt runoff as you know) the addition of 400 cfs to the gaged flow makes a significant <br />difference in the estimated flood frequency of the flood event. <br /> <br />Attached for your review are two tables that summarize hydrology data for the Elk River near <br />Milner. As you can see from the tables, the source of the flood-frequency values and the <br />variability in the June 3 peak flow estimate make a big difference in the estimated flood <br />frequency for the subject event. We would appreciate input from one of your staff members <br />regarding the information shown in the attached table. <br /> <br />In conclusion, the CWCB would like a written explanation regarding the difference in the initial <br />flow estimate of 6,600 cfs vs. the recent flow estimate of 5,370 cfs. Additionally, the CWCB <br />feels that it is important that the unrecorded overbank flow be thoroughly investigated using <br />detailed surveyed cross-sections, high water marks, and other data. The overbank flow should <br />definitely be added to the recorded streamflow in order to determine a more realistic peak flow <br />value for June 3, 1997. <br /> <br />If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (303) 866-3441. <br />Thank you very much for your consideration on this matter. <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br />Thomas W. Browning, P,E. <br />Flood Control and Floodplain Management Section <br /> <br />cc: Bob Jarrett <br /> <br />TWB/twb <br />Attachment <br /> <br />C:Isecalfloodlelk-rivlhorak Itr.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.