My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD07093
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
FLOOD07093
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:00 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:44:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Otero
Pueblo
Community
Otero, Pueblo Counties
Stream Name
Arkansas River
Basin
Arkansas
Title
Arkansas River Channel Capacity and Riparian Habitat Planning Study
Date
8/1/2001
Prepared For
CWCB
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Project
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
162
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />irrigate thousands of acres. During the irrigation season, the river was becoming what is now <br />generally termed "a gaining river" as ground water percolated from the irrigated upland areas <br />back to the river (Bittinger and Stringham 1963:3-4; Watts and Lindner-Lunsford 1992:11) and <br />because of this groundwater return flow, the river changed as Nadler and Schumm (1981 :97) <br />report: "the major hydrologic change was from [an] intermittent to [a] perennial stream flow" <br />(Nadler 1978:111). <br /> <br />The famous Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the droughts of the 1950s had major effects on <br />the region and on how the population utilized the valley's resources (USACE 1965:23). During <br />and after these drought years, domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural interests focused <br />on the importance of ground and transmountain water. Developments to gain access to these <br />resources were intensified as numerous ground water wells were drilled and water diversions <br />constructed (Abbott 1985:9; Bittinger and Stringham 1963:3; Nadler 1978:60-63; Milenski <br />1990:157). Ground water was primarily used to supplement agricultural irrigation and locally, in <br />the immediate area of the wells, diminished the return flow to the river (Bittinger and Stringham <br />1963:3-4). <br /> <br />Along with changes in the hydrologic character of the river, caused by diversions and <br />increasing groundwater, "there were [also] changes in the types and amounts of floodplain <br />vegetation" (Nadler and Schumm 1981:97, 104-105). The earliest account of salt-cedar <br />(Tamarix) occurring in the Arkansas River Valley is reported in 1913, near Lamar (Lindauer <br />1970:4-5; Lindauer and Ward 1968:3-4). This phreatophyte "is a highly water-consuming <br />naturalizing shrub" that is known to be very aggressive in the way it has spread across most of <br />the arid and semi-arid areas of the west (Robinson 1965: 1). "...it has not only invaded but has <br />entirely replaced the native vegetation in many areas" (Robinson 1965:1). Turner (1974, in <br />Nadler 1978:87) "credited the success of salt-cedar in competing with the native vegetation to its <br />prolific seed production, its effective seed dissemination, its rapid growth, and its early <br />maturation." "The [general] time of awareness of salt-cedar in the Southwest" is considered to <br />be in the 1920s and salt-cedar was reported in local accounts to have been spread in the Arkansas <br />River floodplain by the floods of 1.921 and 1937 (Robinson 1965:4-6; Lindauer and Ward <br />1968:3). During the 1930s, the drought created a situation that allowed salt-cedar to encroach on <br />the river channel and in old meanders, establish itself below the high water levels of the channel, <br />and stabilize the point bars (Nadler and Schumm 1981:109). The primarycollcerns regarding the <br />spread of and increased density of salt-cedar are related to the effects of the plant encroachment <br />on the river channel. In establishing itself, salt-cedar constricted channel widths and increased <br />bank roughness thereby slowing river flows and increasing sediment deposition especially in <br />overbank areas (Robinson 1965:10; Nadler 1978: 87; Nadler and Schumm 1981:98, 105, HI; <br />Snyder and Miller 1991:173). <br /> <br />Studies also indicate that salt-cedar consumes a significant amount of ground water <br />(Robinson 1965; Bittenger and Stringham 1963), enough so that this is of great concern and <br />which Robinson (1965:1, 8-10) refers to as "consumptive waste." Bittenger and Stringham <br />(1963:4) conducted a vegetative and consumptive use study in the Arkansas River Valley and <br />determined that for the study years between 1940 and 1961 there was a significant decrease in <br />average annual river gain between 1949 through 1961. They attributed the reduction in river <br />gain to increases in floodplain vegetation and estimated for the area between La Junta and Las <br /> <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.