2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) We were looking for some old benchmark listings in GSAK (for the upcoming contest) and noticed some of the marks in our area are deeply submerged in Lake Powell. By deep I'm referring to 400' to 500' or more. The question is would these be candidates for being considered destroyed? Granted, you can not actually verify that the disk is there, but there is no way it will ever be accessible. It is possible to verify the lake level though and compare it to the recorded elevation for these marks. HN0374 HN0375 John edited to add the links. Edited February 27, 2006 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Quote Link to comment
Bill93 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 My vote is that difficult to access does not equal destroyed. Maybe in some future century a natural disaster will drain the lake and scientists will want to know how much the lake bed has moved. Quote Link to comment
mloser Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Don't forget unnatural disasters, or even planned removal of the dam. All over the country there are studies being undertaken to ascertain the environmental impact of dams and whether there is a strong case to remove them. A quick search of the Internet turned up this article and a page by American Rivers that lists recent dam removals. And finally, a well written article in the BioBulletin about dams and their futures. So those marks may reappear again someday! Quote Link to comment
+seventhings Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I would log such marks as NOTE, with comment that I could not search for the mark because it's described location appears to be inaccessible because it's way under water, etc. Were I to submit a recovery report to the NGS, I would report NOT FOUND with comments as to the reason why. W Quote Link to comment
+Cyclometh Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Hmm. Can you get SCUBA equipment that lets you dive that far? Logging a "found" on those would be a feather and a half for your cap! Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted March 6, 2006 Author Share Posted March 6, 2006 Hmm. Can you get SCUBA equipment that lets you dive that far? Logging a "found" on those would be a feather and a half for your cap! Estimated depth currently is 450' - 500'. I don't think scuba will help and the amount of silt and sand blown into the lake since about 1960 will have buried the marks, anyway. John Quote Link to comment
+Cyclometh Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Hmm. Can you get SCUBA equipment that lets you dive that far? Logging a "found" on those would be a feather and a half for your cap! Estimated depth currently is 450' - 500'. I don't think scuba will help and the amount of silt and sand blown into the lake since about 1960 will have buried the marks, anyway. John I did some research, and a rebreather (heliox was mentioned) could get you that depth. But it would require months or years of training and experience to safely dive that deep. It'd take a support team, and you would likely not have a huge amount of time to search. It'd still be a hell of an accomplishment! Would that be a found poor or just a found as described? Quote Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Hmm. Can you get SCUBA equipment that lets you dive that far? Logging a "found" on those would be a feather and a half for your cap! Estimated depth currently is 450' - 500'. I don't think scuba will help and the amount of silt and sand blown into the lake since about 1960 will have buried the marks, anyway. John I did some research, and a rebreather (heliox was mentioned) could get you that depth. But it would require months or years of training and experience to safely dive that deep. It'd take a support team, and you would likely not have a huge amount of time to search. It'd still be a hell of an accomplishment! Would that be a found poor or just a found as described? Rebreather would not be the way to go. Rare-gas diving, yes. But as you mention, a heck of an undertaking. Back when I was doing the scuba thing pretty seriously, I did a confirmed 350ft dive. Your bottom time is nothing, and the decomp time is immense. So the upshot is - no, not practical. That said - those could be *easily* recovered with RPV submersibles. Even a "hobbiest" deep water RPV would pick those off. Even if they're under feet of silt, they can be blown and vacuumed. Treasure hunters do it "all the time". Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.