Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--".4', <br /> <br />-';':;".:"."..1:' <br /> <br />',__1 ,_--.~_, '-;".~...,~...:..:...:.:,>.;;,q.'",,;,. . ~i- ~~ _:~ . '';_ <br /> <br />CJ <br />o:::l" <br />C'j <br />C'J <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />PLAN FORMULATION <br /> <br />Project features <br /> <br />Besides the deletion of the Josephine Basin Canal, there are two <br />principal differences in the ,~ite River Segment between features of <br />this plan and those of the previous one. The White River Feeder Conduit <br />would not flow through a tunnel from the diversion dam to the Lake Avery <br />Turnout but would be a buried pipeline. Its alignment would be generally <br />adjacent to Colorado Highway 132 from the North Fork Diversion Dam to a <br />point near Big Beaver Creek, where it would turn north along the east <br />side of Lake Avery. Two turnouts for municipal and domestic use would <br />be provided from the Yellow Jacket Conduit, one near the beginning of <br />the conduit and the oth~r near Curtis Creek northeast of Meeker. <br /> <br />Thornburgh Reservoir would be constructed to the same specifica- <br />tions as in the previous plan, but the Milk Creek Segment would have <br />major features 'not in the previous plan--the Morapos Feeder Conduit, the <br />Milk Creek Canal and Diversion Dam, and laterals. The Morapos Feeder <br />Conduit would be a 7.5-mile-long closed conduit with a capacity of 70 <br />second-feet. It would include a diversion structure in Morapos Creek. <br />The 12-mile-long Milk Creek Canal would receive water diverted from the <br />creek by the Milk Creek Diversion Dam. The initial capacity would be 60 <br />second-feet. There would be about 15 miles of laterals from the canal; <br />the largest of which would be the l2-mile-long Iles Lateral having a 20- <br />second-foot initial capacity. <br /> <br />To increase the value of Lake Avery as a recreational and fishery <br />reservoir, this plan provides for a dead and inactive pool of 15,000 acre- <br />feet which is nearly twice the total capacity of the existing reservoir. <br />This larger dead and inactive storage would result in a total capacity <br />of 55,000 acre-feet, and would reduce the drawdown and the pump lift. <br /> <br />Economic aspects <br /> <br />The estimated construction cost of this plan is $95,160,000. The <br />annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs are estimated at <br />$319,000. Pumping costs included in this figure are based on an average <br />annual energy use of 831,000 kilowatt-hours and a capacity of 12,';JO <br />kilowatts. <br /> <br />Estimated annual benefits of $11,075,000 and annual equivalent costs <br />of $7,241,000 result in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.53 to 1. <br /> <br />Environmental Considerations <br /> <br />This plan would have features similar to the coal emphasis alter- <br />native. There would be an inundation of wildlife habitat at both rLser- <br />voirs, therefore, with improvement in fishery habitat in the Milk Creek <br /> <br />52 <br />