Feasibility Report of Proposed Watershed Program: East Plum Creek Watershed

Home Browse Search

' Gttic_h_ Structure sj.L.e EP_.'7 is -.oca'1_f .3d on ti.1e idozm `smith place in Section 26, Ta;rnship 9 S., Range 37 W, t -rj.:h a drainage area of 1,27 square miles above the site, T.'c is estimated thai: without the structure site 3.0 acres of hayland bolo< <t the structure size 'trill be a total loss a-rid 40 acres of hayland trill be red�zced to pasture as a result of ..edhrnenL deposition durin<; the 50 -.year evaluation period., This structure will also reduce looding on th"- _ below it by an estimated 40 per cen The es'�in�atecl av e sago annual benefit to structure number EP..7 i s x$399 as agai. ist the estimated average annual cost of $1 -01 0 , to give a ? benefit cost ?:•at ?.o of .39 to 1.00, CO CL TIST_CNS From the Toro oing evaluation, it appears conclusive Chat none of the seven structure sites evaluated could zie econanically justified with present watershed conditions and criter ur,ed in vratershed planning under Pu lic Lair 566, This is evi.denced by th-D fact that the best benefit - cost ratio calculated for any structure si'Le was , 39 to 1,00 and the banef- itwcos - L ratio for the seven s a s a unit was calculated - co be : 31 to 1.00 ( see Table 8). As another indication of project infoasibility the total average art.-aual floo ,'plain damage: in the entire watershed are estimated to ha s' ln, %i79 while the average annual cost of - - stiuctf Ural measures piton ram is estimated to be X23, 989 The accuracy of the, figures in this 1 opor'1: are subject to question only in that no detailed hydrology and engineering surveys and studies were made, The estimates i mad e by experienced Se_ ,d ce tecitnicians using data developed on similar areas of West Cherry Creels and Franktotm- Parker Tributaries of Cherry Creek Watersheds, The t.ratershed program evaluated in this report would not become feasible even if 'the benefits could be dou'r,1ed and is 100 per cent damage r could be attained.