Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'1S'j 11J 0 <br /> <br />RueDI DAM AND RESER\'OIH, COLO. <br /> <br />, . <br /> <br />Tlle. grea.test. floor1 of a 58-year record on the Roaring Fork River <br />was 18,700 cubic feet per secoild at Glenwood Springs .on July 1., 1957. <br />A record of similar le.ngth is not antilnhle for t.ll~ F.l'YlIlgl?an RIver. <br />The three cOllnti{~s uf Gartielrl\ Eagle, and Pltklll, winch embrace <br />most of t.he l?cf\ 1 :l1'en~ had a l!opl.Ila.tion ill U)5t) a vel'aging a.I \)c['Sons <br />per square mile. [he poplIlatlOll1Jl t.he overflow a.r~as has not C lunged <br />appreciahly in l'l'Cellt years. The. H)f,O populatIOns of GI~~lwood <br />Springs, Carbonda.le, Basalt, and Aspen were 2,412, #4, 1..3, and <br />$)16, respedlvely. . . . <br />A p~elimina~':r conside.rntioll of majo}' sl~,nwmelt flo:,"s III the Fl''ylI1g- <br />pa.n }{lver and In t.he dralllnge. area. of t.he. COl(ll'ado n~y~-I' abo~;e GI:nnd <br />Valley indicate that tile peak discha.l'ge at the Ruedl 1)[~rn SIte 1ll1.ght <br />be about 8D percent of :1 contempol'{I.ry peak on the Fr).'lngpan RIver <br />at its mouth j nhollt 48 percent of the em'responding peak Ol~ the <br />Roaring Fork River just below the mout.h of the FrJ:iugpan R1ver; <br />aLont 36 percent. of the correspondmg pe{lk on t.he Ronl'mg F~rk RIver <br />at .its mouth; {I11d abont 18 to 15 percent of th(~ correspoIlchng peak <br />on t.he Colorado River between the month of the Roarinr" Fork River <br />and the mouth of tJle Gunnison River. Complete contro of snowmelt <br />discharges at the Ruedi Res",'\'oir "ollld elimin:Lte all poteutia.! flood <br />damage OlL the Fryingpan River downstream. Such control would <br />substantially reduce flood damage on t.he R.oa.ring Fork Ri\"er below <br />the mouth of the Fryingpttll Hi reI'. PercentagE'-wi~e t.he damage <br />caused by Fryingpan River waters a.!ong the Colonldo Ri,'er "ould be <br />a relatively small part. of the potential damage in that pan of the <br />Colorado l~iver refel'l'ed to above. <br />The overflow areas under considernt.ion include 13.5 miles along <br />t.he Fryin~n.n River, 25.7 miles along the Roa.ring Fork River, and <br />about 90 mIles alon" t.he Colorado River, The Fl-yingpan Ri,-er is <br />well entrenched, and the only present. development a.long that stream <br />that is subject to flood damugl\ consists of about 1 mile of 2-lane p,n-ed <br />highw.y; 2 highway bridges; and about 14 "abins, most of "hieh a,,, <br />near the eha.nnel in or ndJllcent. to Ba..-:::1lt.. In gellentJ, the Roaring <br />Fork Rive.r between Basalt and Carbond,de is in a valley avemging <br />about 0.75 mile in width. Below Carbond,tle, the valley is narrower <br />and t.h~ st.ream is g"nernlly deeply entrenched. Along the Roaring <br />Fork River, proferty affected by floods includes about 2,500 aeres of <br />agricult.ural lan(, devoted mostly to pasture; about. 1:) dwellinlfs "it.h <br />farm buildings; 7 road bridges; about 2 miles of railroad; 0.,5 mile <br />of State highway; and 0.75 mile. of othe.r roads. The value of lands <br />and improvements susceptible to flood damage along t.he Colora.do <br />River bet"een Gle.nwood Springs MId Grand Junction has not. been <br />definitely est.imllted. The ntlue of all property in the oVl>,rflow areas <br />between Ruedi Dam site 01\ the Fryingpnn River and Grand Junction <br />on t.he Colorado River is belie.ved to be at least $1 million and may <br />I"ach $:) million to $;; million. Very little information is now aTail- <br />able upon which to base n.n est.imate of future values in the overflow <br />n.reas. In general, the development in these a.reas seems stuhilized, <br />nnd dllmu.g-es have been est.imated on this assumpt.ion. <br />On t.he basis of It fl'Jlxl damage. SUl've.y made "fte.r the 1957 flood <br />(18,700 cubic fee~ per second at. the Glenwood Springs gage on t.he <br />RoaTlng Fork Rn'er), the total flood damage ,dong the Fryingpan <br />