WSP01752 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,- u ._, ,,--,'''~ ._. ,..,_ ,c,,_ - ;.C...~.-. ","'=_~.':4.'XI-~":", ...,~,-,-, ,'._,-....: ~.A,...-'''..:.,.:::>:- C'J N ,t<') C'J CHAPTER IV PLAN FORMULATION recommends that if a reservoir were constructed at this site, only limited recreation development be provided. Buford site The Buford Reservoir site is located on the mains tern of the White River just below the confluence of the North and South Forks and the mouth of Big Beaver Creek. A reservoir as large as 200,000 acre-feet would be possible at this site. It would provide good river regulation and some flood control. The dam would be long and high, but because of the large capacity economic aspects would be favorable. There are severe drawbacks, however, to building a reservoir at this site. The reservoir would inundate several miles of trout stream, the existing Lake Avery, 1,000 acres of wildlife winter range and live- stock grazing, 725 acres of irrigated farm land, and the community of Buford. There would be serious road relocation problems also. Large mud flats would be left in late summer by reservoir drawdown. Wildlife migration routes would possibly be interrupted. Lake Avery enlargement Considerable attention has been given in recent studies to the enlarge- ment of Lake Avery, an existing reservoir of 7,800-acre-foot capacity on Big Beaver Creek that is owned and operated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. An enlarged reservoir would store the estimated 10,000 acre- feet of natural flow of Big Beaver Creek along with a supplemental supply diverted from the North Fork. The maximum feasible capacity would be about 55,000 acre-feet. Water stored at Lake Avery could be used for all project purposes. Releases could be made to the river for downstream diversion and to aug- ment late season fishery flows. During high streamflow periods, project water uses in the Little Beaver area could be supplied by direct diver- sions from the North Fork, conveyed around Lake Avery by a conduit and through a tunnel to the Little Beaver basin. During low-flow seasons, storage water could be pumped from the reservoir to the tunnel for proj- ect uses. A reservoir at this site would have several positive aspects. The dam would be relatively inexpensive, and no road relocations would be needed. The land use impact would be minimized by the fact that there is presently a lake and a recreation area at the site. The increased surface area would provide additional recreation. Environmental impacts at the site would be less than at most of the other sites considered. There are some negative aspects to the use of the Lake Avery site. The present stable lake would be replaced by a fluctuating reservoir, 32