Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5. l\.rnount of X_t9_Qg.....~t9J:f.lAe ~Q_.~R~_._S&n'LEict_~g. Gased on the reev21u~ti-')n of th~ <br /> <br /> <br />reservoir design floods in '~onjun~tion '.-tith the updated capacity c::urves, <br /> <br /> <br />the maximu'TI amount of flood storage that could be convert2d to :4ater supply <br /> <br /> <br />storage at Chatfield and Bear Creek is shown gS follows: <br /> <br />Chatfield - Existing Flood Storage 204,700 ;IF <br /> Required Flood Storage 182,000 AF, <br /> Ex c:: ess Storage 22, 700 'iF <br />Bear Creek - Existing Flood Storage 56,400 AF <br /> Required Flood Storage 13...QQQ_AF <br /> Excess Storage 18,400 AF <br /> <br />6. New Storage Allocation~. Converting flood storage space ~ water supply <br /> <br /> <br />storage would require a reallocation of the existing storage space in the <br /> <br /> <br />Chatfield and Bear Creek Reservoirs. Th~ potential new allocations are shown <br /> <br /> <br />on plate 3. Although the amount of space allocated to new water supply <br />storage will probably remain fixed, the reservoir elevations at \-thich it is <br />available is questionable at. this time, particularly in Chatfield. Tne major <br />con~ern is the redistribution of sediment depositions caused by operating the <br />lakes at a higher level. New studies will be made at each project to deter- <br />mine the most likely deposition pattern. These studies are scheduled to be <br />completed in !"larch 1985. <br />7. I'l1pacts of Loss oLllQQd Storage.. <br />a. Q!J F100d Control. Since storage is being provided at 2ach project to <br />control standard project flood or the 500 -year 'noul1tain snO\-l.TIelt flood, it can <br />be concluded that there I.Jill be no significant increase in flood risl< belm.J <br />the projects. The 100-yeor discharge profile on the South Platte River <br />developed for the Denver Metro Report in 1979 would still only have a <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />