My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02347
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02347
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:36:19 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:03:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8102
Description
Arkansas River Basin Basic Hydrology
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
5/7/1999
Author
Inter-Fluve Inc
Title
Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment of Upper Arkansas River - Final Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
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 />May 7, 1999 <br /> <br />Fluvial Geomorphological Assessment <br />Upper Arkansas River <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <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 />3.2. Flow Diversions and Augmentations <br /> <br />3.2.1. The Diversion/Augmentation System <br />The Upper Arkansas River basin has a long and complex history of transbasin diversions <br />and augmentation of natural channel flows with diverted water (Figure 3.1). Transbasin <br />diversions were first constructed on tributaries of the upper Arkansas River as early as the <br />early 1900's when water was conveyed from the Colorado River basin through ditches to <br />placer mines in the Arkansas River Valley (Jewell, 1999). Additional diversions began in <br />1925 when the Busk-Ivanhoe system (the Carlton Tunnel) began importing water to Lake <br />Fork Creek, a tributary that enters the Arkansas River 1.5 miles downstream of California <br />Gulch (Abbot, 1985). In August 1962, the Fryingpan-Arkansas River Project was <br />authorized by the U.S. Congress, establishing the onset of a major construction effort to <br />divert Colorado west slope water to the east slope for supplemental irrigation and <br />municipalities, <br /> <br />Flow augmentations occur on the Arkansas River upstream of California Gulch via the <br />Ewing and Wurtz Ditch, and Wurtz Ditch Extension, These ditches discharge into <br />Tennessee Creek. The East Fork Arkansas River also receives additional flows from the <br />Columbine Ditch, <br /> <br />Augmentations into the Lake Fork basin are derived from the Busk-Ivanhoe, Boustead, <br />and Homestake Tunnels that flow into and store west slope water in Turquoise Lake <br />Reservoir, which is impounded by SugarloafDam (Figure 3.1). The Homestake tunnel <br />began operation in May, 1967, followed by the Bousted tunnel in May, 1972. Prior to <br />June, 1981, both imported and native flows were delivered down Lake Fork Creek to the <br />Arkansas River. <br /> <br />3.2.2. Hydrologic Effects <br />Two major subwatersheds that are utilized to convey diverted flows contribute water to <br />the project reach. First, in the portion of the project reach located upstream of the Lake <br />Fork confluence, native flows are augmented by water diverted from the Colorado Basin <br />and conveyed down Tennessee Creek and the East Fork Arkansas River. At the Lake <br />Fork confluence, additional flows that enter the project reach reflect native inputs from <br />Halfmoon Creek, as well as and releases from SugarloafDam, which stores both native <br />and augmented flows. <br /> <br />The patterns and hydrologic effects of the augmentation and reservoir release practices <br />have been evaluated in limited detail (Studzinski 1996; O'Neill and others, 1997; <br />Dominick and O'Neill, 1998; Jewell, 1999). Upstream of the Lake Fork confluence, the <br />Ewing, Wurtz, and Columbine ditches have contributed up to 10-15% of the total annual <br />flow recorded just downstream at the USGS Leadville Junction gage, and during peak <br />flows, have contributed as much as 22% ofthe total streamflow (Studzinski, 1996). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.