Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-. <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br />--.' <br /> <br />1'.~'''''-'' <br />G.';' <br /> <br />(Water resources) <br /> <br />shown in table 2 . is 68.1 percent of the flow at or near Norrie for <br />both Fryingpan River and North Fork of the Fryingpan River. Of the <br />total runoff intercepted by the diversion structures, a portion would <br />be lost to minimum fish flow requirements which would be by-passed and <br />to high daily flows whiah exceed the capacity of the diversion struct- <br />ures. <br /> <br />In order to determine the flow characteristics of streams at 10,000 <br />fe~t elev"tion and flbove, f\ sb'cy W'lS m.c,de of records for the lTOonths of <br />Yay, June, and July fer the years 1941,1942, and 1943 on three small <br />tributaries of the Roaring F'ork River "bove Aspen. Recording g'lges were <br />in eperation during the above-mentioned 3-year peTiod, and the records <br />obtained were utilized by the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company, <br />owners and Op8rQtors of (Colorado Canal Company) the Independence Pass <br />Diversion which obtains wnter from that general area. The three gages <br />were 1"6co:ted :it' an e lavation of",'\bout 10,500 feet on To,ocir Gulch, East <br />Fork',of NeVi York ,Gulch, .rend West Fork of New,Y.ork .Gulch" Hourly rCltos <br />of flow were rec,d from the daily hydrographs and a graph, exhibit 5 <br />wns prepared by plotting diversion capacity in percentage of average <br />monthly rato of flow ag"inst percentage of monthly runoff divertiblc. <br />Graphs were then propcred for various size diversion canals by plotting <br />runoff availr-.blo agdnst runoff divertible. <:xhibit 6 is the gr:cph <br />prepared for diversion structure of 800 second-feet c[\p~city which is <br />the capacity of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Tunnol. <br /> <br />From determinations b"sed on the above-mentioned graphs and the <br />approximc.te cost of the different cap--.ci ty diversion structures, the <br />most economical size tunnel for the Fryingpan-Arkansas diversion is <br />800 second-foet. Exhibit 7 shows the rolationship between the cost <br />per Clcre-fQot of water diverted and the diversion capccity. In order <br />to eompute the divertible flow for the different diversion capQcities. <br />exhibit 8 wns propared to show the monthly runoff plotted flgainst the <br />peroent of time tho flow exceeded the diversion capClcity and the ap- <br />proximflte qun.ntity of wnter to be by-passed to meet minimum fish flow <br />requirements. A minimum total of 30 second-feet at diversion points } <br />on the colloction system would be made ~vailablo for fish flows through <br />project opcmtion and thflt wo"lc, be divided between the several tribu- <br />taries interoepted by Fryingpan River Diversion. <br /> <br />The transbasin tunnel would be closed from November ~hrougb lfurch <br />each year in order to eliminate the difficulties encountered by winter <br />diversions from the higher altitudes. Maintenance and repair of the <br />transbasin tunnel and other diversion structures would be nccolTOplished <br />during these winter mo~ths. <br /> <br />By closing the transbasin tunnel during the winter months and al- <br />lowing for minimum fish flow requirements to be by-passed, the average <br />annuo;l-divortibie --flow -for-the l'eri'od-1930..194'l- wou'ld-be-52-, 200-(l'cre- <br />feut per yeur. Busk-Ivanhoe Tunnel hus diverted un average of 5,000 <br />(lcre-feet por yecr for thE> perioo 1930-lQ41, 'i; 1)00 ",c:-a .feet per yenr <br />10 <br />